Sitting of 19 January 1999

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

    St. Helena
    Mr. Bob Russell: If he will restore full British citizenship to residents of the island of St. Helena. [64585]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): The issue of British citizenship for all residents of United Kingdom overseas territories who do not already have it is being considered as part of our review of policy towards the overseas territories. The issue will be covered in the overseas territories White Paper, which we expect to publish soon.
    Mr. Russell: I am sure that we all welcome the early publication of the White Paper, but can the Minister give any reason why the 5,500 citizens of St. Helena should not have restored to them the full British citizenship that the islanders enjoyed for more than 300 years, before the Conservative Government withdrew it in 1981? Surely the islanders deserve an early return to full British citizenship.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am very pleased to hear members of the official Opposition cheering on the hon. Gentleman. When all is said and done, it was they who took away that right from the St. Helenians, and he is absolutely right about that. I think that he would be happy to acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it very clear for a long time that the issue of citizenship will be treated constructively and sympathetically, but I must tell the House, and those outside who show a keen interest in the matter, that it is still, I am afraid, necessary to wait for the White Paper, which will be published soon.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: While the Minister is considering citizenship for the St. Helenians, will he also recognise that they have grave concerns about their transport links? Is he aware that, in order to attend a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference—which hon. Members of all parties attended, including me—a delegate from the St. Helena Parliament had to
    690
    travel for three and a half weeks by ship to Cardiff? Even more urgently than citizenship, the people of St. Helena need an airstrip.
    Mr. Lloyd: It may be that, in this case, the people of St. Helena speak for themselves better than the hon. Gentleman speaks for them; when they meet me and other Members of Parliament, they may say that transportation is important, but citizenship is always the issue that they raise first. A review of transportation links is taking place. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman, and through him to the House and the world, is that the most important thing is to ensure that there is adequate communication. The existing ship that sails regularly to St. Helena must be a long-term part of the island's transportation structure, and we want to do nothing to threaten the viability of that sea route.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Is my hon. Friend alluding to the charge that many of us made against the then Government, that in 1981 the citizens of St. Helena and other dependent territories were treated cynically as pawns, to ensure that that Government did not face continuing embarrassment over large influxes into the United Kingdom of residents of Hong Kong when Britain was negotiating the handover of that territory?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend castigates the official Opposition in their former role as the Government better than I can, but I can assure him that their days in government are now receding rapidly into the past and that it will be a long time before the British people give that failed party any credence and trust them again with the onerous burden of government.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Martin Bell: What assessment he has made of the prospects for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe verification mission in Kosovo.[64586]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The courage and commitment of the Kosovo verification mission have brought stability to the lives of many in Kosovo by brokering local ceasefires and assisting in the return of refugees. It was months before the world knew the full truth about the massacre in Srebrenica. Thanks to the Kosovo verification mission, we had clear, accurate and reliable information within 24 hours of the atrocity at Racak, and as a result we were able to secure immediate universal condemnation of the massacre.
    We deplore Belgrade's decision to designate as persona non grata the head of the Kosovo verification mission, Bill Walker. I have today spoken with both Madeleine Albright and Knut Vollebaek, the current president-in-office of the OSCE. We are all agreed that Bill Walker will stay at his post and continue the work that he is doing with distinction. It is not for President Milosevic to decide who will head the international team.
    Mr. Bell: In planning the way forward, is the Foreign Secretary aware of one of the lessons of the Bosnia

    691
    experience, that persuasion by itself achieves little and that the threat of force, to be effective, must be matched by a willingness to use it?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I said to the House yesterday, the NATO planes remain on 96-hour notice and the actord—activation order—remains in force and requires only one political decision to trigger it. We showed last time that we had a credible threat of military force, or we would not have secured the agreement. We are now determined that President Milosevic will honour the agreements that he made.
    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Is it not clear that President Milosevic has broken every undertaking and assurance given to the International War Crimes Tribunal? Is it not evident that he has no intention of co-operating? What positive action can be taken to punish his flagrant violations?
    Mr. Cook: General Clark and General Naumann, the two top North Atlantic Treaty Organisation generals, are currently in Belgrade for discussions with President Milosevic. They will report tomorrow to the North Atlantic Council, which will consider appropriate steps in the light of any assurances that President Milosevic gives. I echo my hon. Friend's reference to the International War Crimes Tribunal: it is vital that it is given access to Kosovo so that it may carry out an independent investigation of what was plainly an atrocious war crime.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is clear, is it not, that, but for the presence of the official monitors, the sort of events that occurred last weekend in Kosovo might have been repeated elsewhere on many occasions? When General Wesley Clark talks to Mr. Milosevic today, does he do so with the full political and military authority of NATO? In particular, can the Foreign Secretary assure us that military planning for every eventuality is occurring, covering all options including deployment of troops on the ground?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that General Clark has the full authority of NATO; he is, after all, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and he went at the request of the North Atlantic Council following its meeting on Sunday. General Clark's mission carries the full authority of NATO.
    Preparations continue, and they have not ceased, on what might be the appropriate military response if one is required. However, there would be grave reservations about committing ground troops in the absence of a clear agreement between the two participants in the conflict on a political outcome and a political track. To put in ground troops without a commitment on both sides of the political process would be to put in ground troops without a clear political objective.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: A uniformed police force in Europe is murdering its own citizens in cold blood with the full support of its Government. Like the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), I had hoped to have seen the last of that sort of thing in Bosnia, and that lessons had been learnt from that conflict. As President Milosevic has comprehensively reneged on
    692
    the agreement that he made with Richard Holbrooke, can we rely on NATO to take whatever steps may be necessary to degrade or restrain the forces that are perpetrating atrocities?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend can certainly have an assurance that NATO remains fully engaged, fully prepared and fully ready to take whatever action is judged to be necessary. I must remind him that, as has been said already, the presence of the verification mission in Kosovo has prevented such atrocities from occurring much more often than they have. Were we to contemplate going down the road towards military action, the first thing that we would have to consider would be the withdrawal of that verification mission.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Has not the situation in Kosovo deteriorated, even since the Foreign Secretary's statement at the Dispatch Box yesterday? The Prime Minister's official spokesman was quoted yesterday as saying that there was little scope for early military action. How can that be reconciled with the statement of a State Department spokesman that NATO would very quickly have to make a decision to use force? How can it be reconciled with the repeated threats of force made by the Foreign Secretary? Does the presence of the verification mission not imply that action will be taken if the mission is not allowed to do its job? What action will be taken if President Milosevic refuses to submit to the demands made by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, and repeated today?
    Mr. Cook: First, I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday and discussed with him with great gravity the options available to us. As I said yesterday, NATO has sent its two top generals to Belgrade to repeat to President Milosevic our demands for full compliance. President Milosevic knows full well what NATO had prepared last time round in October when military action was prepared. The actord that authorised the commanders to carry out that action remains in force. It requires only one decision of the North Atlantic Council to start the process, and the council will meet tomorrow to hear the report of the two generals.

    EU Enlargement
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: When he last met his colleagues from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to enlargement.[64588]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): Enlargement is a regular theme during my meetings with colleagues from other European Union member states. EU Foreign Ministers discussed enlargement issues at each of the General Affairs Councils during the Austrian presidency in 1998.
    Dr. Godman: In view of the shenanigans in Strasbourg last week, the failure of the Commission to deal with fraud and the need to reform the common agricultural policy comprehensively, should not Ministers of member states agree to offer an honest and realistic assessment of the timetable for accession? Do not applicant states

    693
    deserve that honesty? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of the special European Council in March to persuade her colleagues to be as honest as possible, because there is no chance of those countries coming into the EU within the next 10 years?
    Ms Quin: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we have to be honest in our dealings with the applicant countries. I also believe that we must respect the timetables that the European Union has set itself for the reforms that it needs to conclude by March and the March deadline set by the European Parliament for action on fraud by the Commission.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Lady recall the first sentence of the communiqué agreed at the Vienna summit:
    "European integration has gained new momentum"?
    In the light of that first sentence, does she think that her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has cause to regret his claim that the Maastricht treaty represented a "high watermark of integration"? Will she confirm that we will now be faced with ever-increasing demands for greater European integration, which everyone who believes in national self-government should continually resist?
    Ms Quin: When the hon. Gentleman asks questions in the House, he always seems keen to overlook the fact that the Maastricht treaty was concluded under the stewardship of a Conservative Government, as was the single market, which represented a big step forward. If he is against the single market, he will find few allies in the House. The Vienna conclusions to which he referred are worth while and show the areas of agreement between European countries, which are very much in the interests of the citizens of this country and of citizens throughout the EU.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: What progress has been made in discussions between the Government of Turkey and the European Commission on drawing up an understanding of what Turkey needs to do to fulfil conditions for an approach to membership of the EU?
    Ms Quin: It is clear that Turkey would need to meet the criteria that all other countries need to meet if they are to become part of the European Union. Those include important economic criteria and important political criteria relating to democracy and human rights.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that, after enlargement, countries that come into the EU will take a substantial share of its structural funds? In those circumstances, does that not put additional pressure on us in the period up to 2006 to maximise the benefit that comes to the countries of the United Kingdom from those funds? Can she assure us that the Government are turning every stone to achieve that?
    Ms Quin: Indeed; I believe that the Government have already negotiated with a good degree of success on the retention of structural funds, in particular the use of objective 1 funds, which are likely to go to additional areas in the UK. That is important. Also, we have to prepare adequately for enlargement and to recognise the
    694
    financial responsibilities that all EU countries have to make that enlargement process a success. The long-term economic benefits of enlargement will be considerable.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Minister's Department audit ministerial visits to the principal applicant countries of the European Union, as compared with those of Ministers from our EU counterparts? Does she realise that the United Kingdom, both under this Government and the previous Administration, is insufficiently engaged in terms of ministerial visits to applicant countries in central Europe? The United Kingdom does not compare favourably when one considers the visits made by German Chancellors or French Prime Ministers and Presidents. I hope that that will change.
    Ms Quin: I do not accept that there are insufficient ministerial contacts. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited several applicant countries in recent months. I assure my hon. Friend that we wish to ensure the best possible co-ordination of ministerial visits. [Interruption.] I am trying to give the House some information, which is difficult because it is, unfortunately, wasted on Conservative Members. Through the co-ordination committee that I chair, we seek to co-ordinate ministerial visits to make maximum use of our contacts, not only with existing European Union countries but, very importantly, with the applicant countries.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether candidate countries are to be required to join the economic and monetary union? Would that not erect further hurdles in their path? Can she confirm—I understand that she was at the relevant meeting—that the Foreign Secretary recently described the Government's approach to the euro as unsustainable?
    Ms Quin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point is not correct. On his earlier point, the candidate countries express great interest in belonging to the euro zone, but the conditions for them will be negotiated during the current accession negotiations. We are keen to ensure that their conclusion represents a good balance between the European Union's interests and those of the applicant countries.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process following the Wye agreement.[64589]
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on action by the British Government to support the middle east peace process. [64593]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We believe that the Wye agreement offers the best way forward in the middle east peace process. We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Government of Israel to freeze progress on its implementation. Both sides should abide by the commitments that they entered into at Wye and refrain from unilateral acts that undermine it. Both the

    695
    Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority would benefit from progress on the peace. Both should now demonstrate an equal commitment to it.
    Dr. Iddon: Assuming that the Palestinians declare statehood on the intended date, what will the Government's reaction be?
    Mr. Cook: I have just told the House that we would call on both sides to refrain from unilateral acts that would undermine the peace process. I fully understand the frustration in the Palestinian Authority about the fact that 4 May is the terminal date of the Oslo process. It was anticipated that the final stages would have been resolved by then. It remains the view of Britain that all options should be available through self-government decisions by the Palestinian people, not excluding the option of an independent state. However, we would hope that such progress could be achieved through the peace process and not by unilateral action.
    Dr. Starkey: Since the Wye agreement was signed at the end of October, 251 Palestinian political prisoners have been detained by the Israeli Government. The Israelis have confiscated a further 3,000 acres of Palestinian land and accelerated the building of Jewish housing on it. What action are the British Government taking to represent to the Israelis that those activities must cease and that their unilateral suspension of the Wye agreement until after the Israeli general election in May is incredibly unhelpful, and not what one would expect of a state that has signed a binding agreement?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, if the Israeli Government wish to make progress with the peace process, they must carry out the implementation of the peace agreement that they agreed at the Wye Plantation talks.
    With reference to settlements, my hon. Friend helpfully highlights the other side of unilateral acts—in this case, by the Government of Israel. I repeat our appeal to both sides to cease unilateral actions so that we can make progress via the negotiating table.
    To answer my hon. Friend's question about what the Government are doing, I can tell her that, with our European colleagues, we prepare quarterly reports on settlement activity. Those reports are widely available and should inform public debate. We repeat our appeal to the Government of Israel to desist from those unilateral steps that make it so much more difficult to take forward a negotiated agreement.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to an ethical foreign policy, does he agree that, in the light of Israeli obduracy, a continuing and monstrous injustice is being done to the Palestinians? Accordingly, does he not consider that it is about time we decoupled ourselves from the pointless, fatuous and ineffective middle east policy of the United States of America, to whose coat tails we continue to hang in that department; and that we should try to create a sensible, pragmatic, European policy that we can follow with pride and good sense?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman addresses the House with his characteristic robustness and trenchancy. Of course, we shall continue to explore, with our European colleagues, what helpful initiatives can be taken by Europe.
    Mr. John Bercow: Do not bother.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman tells me not to bother, but Europe is underpinning the peace process with funding. If it was not for Europe putting that money behind the peace process, the process would have crumbled long ago. It little befits him to say that we should not bother to keep the peace process in being.
    On the efforts of the United States, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) should remember that the United States brokered the Wye Plantation agreement. That agreement provided a way forward, and Europe and America will now maintain pressure on both parties to ensure that they make progress in implementing that agreement.

    Kashmir
    Mr. John Heppell: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of India on the future of Kashmir.[64590]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We regularly discuss Kashmir with representatives of India and Pakistan.
    Mr. Heppell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have welcomed the talks that took place at the end of last year between the Pakistan and Indian Governments and the confidence-building measures that resulted. Will he assure me that the British Government will be prepared to accept a solution in Jammu and Kashmir only if it has actually been put to the people of Jammu and Kashmir?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to say that we welcomed the talks that took place last year, and we look forward to the next round of talks in February. We hope that those talks will deal with the crucial issues between India and Pakistan and there is no more important issue between those two countries than the future of Kashmir. I agree with my hon. Friend that any future agreement reached between India and Pakistan will stand only if it has popular support.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that problems over Kashmir have arisen only because Britain pulled out of India six months earlier than agreed, under a previous Labour Administration. Does he agree that we therefore have an important responsibility in respect of the future of Kashmir, because the people of Kashmir have always been denied an opportunity to decide their own destiny? The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the existence of the Simla agreement and, when he last answered questions in the House on Kashmir, he said that Pakistan would be happy for Britain to take part—perhaps as chairman—in discussions under the provisions of the Simla agreement. However, we still await a view from India on the matter. Has the right hon. Gentleman raised the subject in his discussions with the Indians, and is there any hope that

    697
    Britain could act as an independent chairman to bring the two sides closer together and to get agreement over Kashmir, as provided under the Simla agreement?
    Mr. Fatchett: Both the Indian and Pakistan Governments feel that the best way to make immediate progress on all their bilateral relations is for them to engage in talks. If, at any stage, the two countries told the United Kingdom that we could play a responsible and constructive role, we should be happy to do so. Both Governments know that.

    Entry Clearance Interviews
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: When he plans to introduce tape recording of interviews by entry clearance offices at overseas posts. [64591]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): In accordance with the recommendation of the recent Foreign Affairs Committee's fourth report on entry clearance operations, the Department is planning a pilot project. Preparations are under way for the pilot system to be installed as soon as practicable in the financial year 1999–2000.
    Mr. Gerrard: I welcome that news, as some hon. Members have pressed for such a project for a long time. Can the Minister confirm that the pilot will cover the full range of interviews, including interviews for settlement and visits? Will he confirm also that the pilot's time scale will be as short as possible so that we can evaluate the findings and look at extending it to other posts? Can the Minister give us any idea of which posts will be considered for pilot projects? Will he take into consideration the number of problems and complaints that have been brought to the attention of his Department by hon. Members whose constituents have experienced difficulties in particular posts?
    Mr. Fatchett: We have not yet decided on a post, but I welcome my hon. Friend's broad comments. We aim to keep the pilot as short as possible, but we must have an opportunity to make an effective evaluation of the way in which the pilot system works. When it comes to that assessment, we must be open to any possibilities that may flow from the pilot system. I assure my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members who have an interest in these matters that we will be open with them and will look to engage them in discussion about possible developments.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: The Minister may know that I founded the Immigration Advisory Service, which plays a large part in such matters. I welcome the Minister's comments today. He knows that we introduced tape-recorded interviews into our criminal justice system to ensure fairness and protection for the defendant. Many Conservative Members believe that fairness and protection for those seeking entry to this country would also be greatly enhanced by the rapid introduction of tape-recorded interviews. I hope that they will be introduced very widely very soon.
    Mr. Fatchett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his work with the Immigration Advisory Service. We must learn from the pilot before we
    698
    move towards using extensive tape recording as a means of reaching decisions. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that may be an effective means of ensuring fairness.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome the Minister's decision to start the pilot project and suggest that he chooses the Bombay post as the subject of the study. Does the Minister agree that, even with recorded interviews, unless we examine the way in which the migration and visa correspondence unit operates when taking statements, there is a risk that, because of MVCU inefficiency, those statements will never reach the applicants in this country?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend raised several concerns about the migration and visa correspondence unit in an Adjournment debate last week. I said at the time that we would examine those points and do all that we could to improve the unit's efficiency. My hon. Friend kindly made some complimentary comments about the work of the entry clearance staff, the burdens that they carry and the way in which they discharge them. I hear what my hon. Friend has said about Bombay and I understand his reasons for suggesting that post. However, we shall also consider other posts before taking a decision.

    Iraq
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of Iraq's compliance with United Nations resolutions.[64592]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I regret to say that Iraq persists in failing to comply with many of the requirements of Security Council resolutions. It has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and it continues with gross violations of human rights, including torture, extra-judicial killing and suppression of ethnic minorities. It has also failed to release or to provide any account of the fate of the 600 detainees removed from Kuwait.
    The recent threat by the Iraqi Assembly to withdraw recognition of the Kuwaiti border is the latest example of Iraq's wilful failure to accept its obligations to either its neighbours or the international community.
    Mr. Winterton: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that full and rational reply. He clearly agrees that Saddam Hussein is flagrantly ignoring his international obligations under United Nations resolutions. Does he agree also that many Arab nations are urging Saddam Hussein to work closely with the United Nations and to obey the United Nations resolutions? Even the distinguished leader of Egypt, President Mubarak, blames Saddam Hussein for the suffering of the Iraqi people.
    What further steps can be taken to bring Saddam Hussein to account for the danger that he poses to the world?
    On a more minor matter, is not Saddam Hussein continuing frequently to violate the no-fly zone, hampering the west in what it is seeking to do?
    Mr. Cook: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, Saddam Hussein has on one occasion attempted to fly planes in

    699
    the no-fly zone, which produced an immediate response from us. He has repeatedly threatened the allied aircraft that are enforcing the no-fly zone. We shall continue to enforce that zone and to take necessary measures in self-defence. The House should remember that the no-fly zone is not in any way a threat to the Iraqi people; it is there to defend them against being bombed by Saddam Hussein.
    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he says about the Arab nations. Saddam Hussein's recent speech in which he characterised all other Arab Governments as dwarves and cowards has done much to restore solidarity among Arab nations. They know perfectly well that they are the ones against whom the weapons of mass destruction will be targeted.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I visited northern Iraq—Kurdistan—just before Christmas? I was deeply moved by the Kurds' view that Saddam Hussein, in violating United Nations Security Council resolutions 986 and 688, was mainly responsible for the suffering in Iraq. Will my right hon. Friend therefore assure me and the Kurds that the Government will take every step, particularly in the United Nations, to ensure that Saddam is not given opportunities to punish his own people further?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I was aware of his visit to northern Iraq because it was brought to my attention at the very interesting time at which he was in the Kurdish area. I assure him and the people of that area that Britain will remain committed to making sure that Saddam cannot infringe the no-fly zone. We recognise that Saddam is sustained in power not by public opinion but by the savage, brutal repression of all those who would otherwise challenge him.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: With Saddam clearly not back in his cage, as the Secretary of State promised, the need for a new approach to the Iraqi regime is now very urgent. The French and the Russians are calling for a relaxation of sanctions, which is alarming the people in northern Iraq, who fear that they may lose the oil revenues that they receive for humanitarian purposes directly from the UN escrow account and be forced, once again, to rely directly on Saddam and Baghdad.
    Will the Secretary of State assure us that on this occasion the new approach will be properly thought through and that he will ensure not only that Saddam' s capacity to produce weapons is monitored, but that any new approach will give full weight to making sure that food and medical supplies reach the children and people of Iraq who are suffering at the hands of Saddam Hussein?
    Mr. Cook: I can repeat to the hon. Lady and the House the assurances that I have given several times—there are no sanctions against imports of food and medicines by Saddam Hussein and, in a period when he persists in saying that his people go hungry, his harvest in Iraq has increased by 15 per cent. We are certainly exploring how we can build a diplomatic consensus to isolate Saddam Hussein and we are in dialogue with France and Russia on those points.
    700
    I am unclear as to whether the hon. Lady was seeking the relaxation of sanctions, but if Saddam Hussein wants sanctions to be relaxed, he should comply with the Security Council resolutions and abandon his expensive programme of developing weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government treat Iraq and Israel differently when they are both in breach of UN resolutions? Does he accept that the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of both those countries are outlawed by the United Nations? We know the Government's position on Iraq; will he now explain their position on Israel?
    Mr. Cook: I have already this afternoon explained our position in relation to the Government of Israel and made it perfectly plain that we greatly regret their unilateral actions which undermine the peace process. If my hon. Friend is attempting to put both Governments in the same box, he should reflect on the fact that Saddam Hussein is the leader of a country in which he has himself used chemical and biological weapons. He used them extensively against his neighbour in the Iran-Iraq war and used them mercilessly against his own people in the Kurdish area where he killed 5,000 villagers when he attacked Halabja. We cannot walk away and leave a man with such a track record in possession of those weapons.

    Diplomats (Ethical Foreign Policy)
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What training his Department provides to diplomats in the execution of an ethical foreign policy.[64595]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): All new entrants attend a one-day human rights course. We run regular courses for other officers, with non-governmental organisation participation. New heads of mission are briefed by the head of the human rights policy department before posting. Where relevant, they are briefed by NGOs such as Amnesty International and the Save the Children Fund.
    Mr. Boswell: Does the Minister agree that the logic of the Government's position is that Ministers and diplomats must resist all temptation to discriminate by picking on smaller and perhaps less significant countries in respect of minor defects, because it is safe to do so, while conveniently overlooking much greater defects on the part of countries that are powerful or where major trade interests are involved? Will he remind his diplomats that in those circumstances, and in the context of the Government's general policy, they have not merely a responsibility but an obligation to draw to the authorities' attention any cases of inappropriate discrimination?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am delighted to be able to agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. Of course it is right and proper that no distinction should be made between abuses of human rights, whether perpetrated by large or small nations. I assure him that the Government try to and succeed in maintaining a consistency of approach, whether such abuses are perpetrated by countries with which we have strong bilateral interests or by those with which we have relatively little contact.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The House must be heartened to see the sudden interest in a moral and ethical

    701
    foreign policy exhibited by the Opposition. Those of us who have been here for the past 18 years certainly did not discern it in the Conservative Government's approach to some of the minor and larger Governments with whom they dealt.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that he will have the support of the whole House if he and his colleagues continue to take actions such as those which led to the establishment of the international criminal court, which is clearly needed given the evidence of what we have seen of Milosevic in Kosovo in the past few days?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government's record did not stand close examination in respect of human rights. That was a disgrace, not only for Parliament but for the whole nation. Since the general election, Britain's image has undergone a radical transformation abroad, precisely because of this Government's level of activity. My hon. Friend mentioned the international criminal court, but I could also mention the human rights fund, a changed policy on arms sales, support for the international tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda and many more initiatives, not all of which received support from the Opposition.
    Mr. Michael Trend: Will the Minister consider it a success for the Government's ethical foreign policy if reports in this weekend's press prove to be accurate? I refer to the report that the Foreign Office assured the Chilean ambassador on Friday 16 October that nothing would happen to Senator Pinochet before 20 October, four days later. However, within 24 hours, Senator Pinochet had been arrested. The Minister will surely understand that suggestions that the senator was entrapped in Britain by the Government, deliberately or through incompetence, will do little to enhance their ethical reputation. Will the Minister now clear up that question for the House?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that he should not believe everything that he reads in the press.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Answer the question.
    Mr. Lloyd: I intend to answer the question. Had the shadow Foreign Secretary taken the trouble to read Hansard this morning, he would have seen that it is already answered today in any case. There is absolutely no truth whatever in such suggestions. No such commitment was given either directly to Senator Pinochet or to his representatives. The House should know that we respect the rights even of Senator Pinochet, which is why his case is now before the judicial system, not the political system—a very important distinction that he did not make in Chile.

    Burma
    Gillian Merron: What steps he is taking to encourage democracy in Burma. [64596]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): The United Kingdom is at the forefront of international action to press the Burmese regime to abandon its repressive policies and enter into
    702
    dialogue with pro-democracy leaders. We supported the renewal and strengthening of the European Union common position in October and co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly resolution in December.
    Gillian Merron: I thank the Minister for that answer. How important does he feel is the role of the BBC World Service in promoting democracy in Burma? Can he reassure the House about the level of financial support being given by the Foreign Office to the BBC World Service to enable it to do that?
    Mr. Fatchett: I know that the BBC World Service is widely respected by all those who favour and believe in democracy in Burma. We look forward to the BBC World Service continuing to play an excellent role; that is why the Government have ensured that, over the next three years, the BBC World Service will have a £44.2 million increase in funding, representing an increase of 3.8 per cent. in real terms in each of those years. That increase in real terms contrasts sharply with the 7 per cent. cut in real terms that took place during the last five years of the previous Government. The BBC World Service is valued by Labour; it was cut by the Conservative party.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sure that the whole House would agree that the World Service does a wonderful job, and I congratulate the Minister on what has been done for it. Is it not time for the repressive regime in Burma to be brought before an international court for the actions that it has taken against some of its citizens?
    Mr. Fatchett: I very much appreciate the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made about our role with the BBC World Service. As for the regime in Burma, I sympathise with the argument that he made. The regime has the worst record in the world; we continue to condemn that record. We continue to ensure that pressure builds on the regime in Burma, and we feel that it is crucial that that pressure is maintained so that we can ensure that dialogue is engaged with the pro-democracy forces.

    Iraq
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: When he next intends to discuss the Basra enclave with his US counterpart.[64598]
    Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to discuss a Basra enclave with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but we are in frequent contact on a wide range of Iraq-related issues, most recently on 10 January 1999.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of a new approach, are the Government in principle opposed to a sanctions-free Basra enclave in southern Iraq?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has advanced that idea for some time. We continue to look at ideas that will enable us to achieve our objectives of disarmament, containment and helping the people of Iraq. I am not yet convinced that my hon. Friend's notion is the best way to proceed, but we shall certainly continue to consider all ideas.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Government consider a longer-term solution for the people of Basra

    703
    and for the other people of Iraq? At the moment, every few months there is yet another crisis in Iraq; yet more bombs are dropped in Iraq; and yet more Iraqi people are killed. The Government have already expressed support for Indict. What steps have the Government taken at the United Nations to indict Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi war criminals, and will the Government make it their policy to support those in Basra and the rest of Iraq who wish to change the Government in Baghdad?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman is right yet again to draw attention to the record of the regime in Baghdad. In much of the current debate, the report by the UN special rapporteur on human rights, Max van der Stoel, is often overlooked, but the most recent report sets out a catalogue of human rights violations by the regime in Baghdad—a catalogue that every hon. Member should look at and remember. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Government support the Indict campaign. It is crucial to remind the world of Saddam Hussein's record, and we shall continue to do so. It would be a perverse person indeed who did not recognise that a change of Government and change of regime in Baghdad would be in the interests of the people of Iraq.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I am pleased that the Government do not favour the Basra enclave option. Would it not lead to the beginning of the break-up of Iraq and problems over which area Basra would be associated with—for instance, with Iran? Given that Basra is the only port in Iraq, the people of Iraq, who are already in very bad economic circumstances, would be cut off from their supplies. If the enclave were established, it would look like American-British occupation.
    Mr. Fatchett: We have always said that we want to maintain the territorial and political integrity of Iraq. My hon. Friend makes several important points in that context. We shall certainly continue to ensure the imposition of no-fly zones, which are very important to the security of people in southern and northern Iraq. To remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, those no-fly zones are there to protect the ordinary people of Iraq, and are crucial for that reason.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Edward Garnier: What steps he is taking to assist in the re-establishment of an independent judiciary in Nigeria. [64599]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We welcome the steps that Nigeria has taken to strengthen an independent judiciary by the installation of a democratically elected Nigerian Government. Through our good governance fund, which is administered by the high commission in Lagos, we have offered support to civil society, including help for the judicial system and for lawyers specialising in human rights work.
    Mr. Garnier: That is no doubt a well-intended answer, but it is not a very clear one. Will the Minister clarify precisely what he means by it?
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course I will clarify it. For example, the high commissioner in Abuja made it clear to the Nigerian
    704
    Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in September that Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to an independent judiciary. To achieve that, we have taken steps with the chief judge of Lagos state and the Nigerian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies to modify court procedures in order to reduce the number of people on remand.
    In the second phase of the court assistance programme, chief justices, attorney-generals, bar associations and other eminent lawyers will work with British colleagues to devise other ways in which to implement a case-flow management system. We are arranging for the chief justice of Lagos state to visit legal institutions in Britain early this year. We have a very good record, which will of course improve with a democratic Government in Lagos. We can begin to reinstitute programme aid, which will allow us directly to assist the federal legal system.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my hon. Friend aware of the continued failure of the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to communicate or co-operate properly with our high commission in Nigeria on consular cases? I have been trying to pursue a case of a constituent of mine who was murdered in that country. I know that there has been virtually no response from Nigerian authorities. The Nigerian Government give information to oil companies in the country, but those companies do not always—in fact, quite commonly do not—share it with our high commission. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Nigerian Government that such a way of operating is unacceptable? Will he tell oil companies that operate in Nigeria that it is unacceptable not to share information on their employees, especially when hostage taking is involved?
    Mr. Lloyd: The House will sympathise with my hon. Friend and, indeed, his constituents, who have suffered such a loss. We would all accept that there is a duty not simply on the Foreign Office but on Governments of countries in which British citizens are killed—indeed, murdered—to ensure not only that a full investigation is carried out, but that its results are made available to the families of the victims. If my hon. Friend wants to talk either to me or to my noble Friend Baroness Symons, I am sure that we can find ways in which to pursue the matter for him.

    Chile
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What measures he has taken to improve the United Kingdom's relations with Chile. [64600]
    Mr. Tim Loughton: What ministerial visits to Chile are scheduled in 1999. [64602]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): In recent weeks I have held meetings with both the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Foreign Minister of Chile. During the recess I met our ambassador to Santiago, who was at home on annual leave. The Chilean Foreign Minister and I remain in regular contact and we have both

    705
    expressed our determination not to allow the legal process concerning Senator Pinochet to disrupt long-term relations between our countries.
    Mr. Wilkinson: What engenders in our natural friends such a profound antipathy towards Her Majesty's Government—an antipathy that is widespread in official circles, but not among the Chilean population? Is it because the Government regard Chile as a country very far away, of which they know extremely little and care even less? Is it because the Government have a predisposition to neo-colonialist interference in other nations' internal affairs? Or is it because the Government have acquired their knowledge of Chile from National Union of Students broadsheets of some 25 years ago?
    Mr. Cook: When Mr. Insulza, the Chilean Foreign Minister, left the meeting that he had with me, he said that he fully understood the position taken by the British Government. There was no great antipathy there. As regards the opinion of the people of Chile, last month 44 per cent. said they believed that Senator Pinochet's detention in the United Kingdom was a good thing, and 45 per cent. said that it was bad. There was no massive antipathy there.
    Our conduct in the case is governed solely by one consideration, which the hon. Gentleman should share—that we should uphold the rule of law and due legal process. He should be ashamed to plead that we should suspend the rule of law because one of his political friends is in front of it at present.
    Mr. Loughton: May I take it from the Foreign Secretary's failure to list any future visits to Chile that he now acknowledges that relations between the United Kingdom and foreign countries are best served and improved when he and his colleagues stay at home, rather than jumping on to Concorde or private jets? Will he acknowledge that, given the Government's admission that British companies are losing business and contracts in Chile, and given the assessment that the trial of General Pinochet could cost the British taxpayer more than £30 million, breaking even the record of the Maxwell brothers, it would have been better to send General Pinochet back home to face due process in his own country, rather than subject the United Kingdom to this expensive and damaging circus?
    Mr. Cook: Let us be quite plain about what the hon. Gentleman is asking. He is asking the Government to defy the courts and end due legal process. He is asking us to set aside a legally proper and properly submitted request for extradition from the Spanish authorities. Yes, it may
    706
    well cost us some money to meet that extradition requirement. The standard basis on which the financial cost of extradition proceedings is met is exactly the same as it was under the Conservative Government: we meet the extradition costs for applications to our country, and Spain meets the extradition costs for applications that we make to Spain. If we expect Spain to honour that, we must honour our side of the bargain.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary take some time to look through the archives in the Foreign Office, and reveal all the documentation available to him about the relationship between past Conservative Governments and the fascist organisations in Chile, and in particular any documentation relating to Operation Condor, under which General Pinochet and Argentinian generals hunted down and assassinated Orlando Letelier, General Prats and others, and a British citizen, William Beausire, was hijacked out of Argentina and subsequently died in Chile? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that revealing everything that we know will help the process of restoring human rights and putting on record the truth of what happened in Chile during the terrible years from 1973 to 1990?
    Mr. Cook: I cannot enter into discussion of the substance of the matter that is currently before the courts. In response to my hon. Friend's plea for full disclosure, may I say that we stand ready to assist the courts in any matter in which the courts may seek our assistance.
    In view of reports in one of the papers this morning, may I tell the House that at this morning's hearing, Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that he wished to correct the suggestion in the press that the Foreign Office had refused a certificate on grounds of secrecy. He said that that was not correct at all. We will be happy to help the courts in any way that we can.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the gift of this Parliament to the Chilean Parliament following its first democratic elections after the brutal regime of Pinochet was a copy of the Magna Carta? Is he aware how strongly the people of Chile, particularly those committed to the democratic system, honour the support for human rights that this country has always upheld, and how much we are admired because of our acceptance of an independent legal system that can judge those who condone murder and torture fairly, without political intervention?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes her point perfectly well. The upholding of that independent legal system is central to our democratic constitution, and our respect for it is widely respected throughout Chile.

Sierra Leone
3.30 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sierra Leone and Her Majesty's Government's response.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We have followed recent events in Sierra Leone with grave concern. In December, the rebels moved closer to Freetown. On 23 December we took the decision to advise British citizens to leave immediately and organised a Royal Air Force airlift for those British nationals who wanted to leave.
The rebels entered Freetown on 6 January. There then followed more than a week of looting and anarchy in which the rebels amply demonstrated their brutality, which repeatedly has blighted Sierra Leone.
As a result of a counter-offensive by ECOMOG forces, mainly Nigerian troops, the rebels have since been driven out of most of Freetown. Many hundreds of ECOMOG troops have been killed in the fighting. The House will wish to pay its respect to the courage and sacrifice of those who have fought to sustain the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. We are relieved that the capital has not fallen, but the situation remains worrying. Much of Freetown has been destroyed and much of the rest of the country remains in rebel hands.
Britain has been the principal supporter in the international community for President Kabbah and the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. First, we have provided more material help to the ECOMOG and Sierra Leone forces than any other nation from outside the region. Following two conversations that I had during the recess with the Nigerian Foreign Minister, we released early this month an additional £1 million pounds-worth of trucks and communication equipment. We have also shared with ECOMOG intelligence on the situation on the ground, and have provided it with maps of Sierra Leone to which it previously did not have access. This morning General Abubakar, Head of State of Nigeria, rang my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to express his thanks for British support and assistance.
Secondly, we have been active in rallying support within the international community. We secured a statement from both the Security Council and the European Union condemning the rebels, and I have given notice that I intend to raise Sierra Leone at next Monday's meeting of European Foreign Ministers. I have also sent a personal message to President Taylor of Liberia demanding that he withdraw support from the rebel forces.
Finally, Britain remains much the largest national donor to Sierra Leone of reconstruction aid and humanitarian assistance. Since the restoration of President Kabbah, Britain has committed more than £20 million in assistance to Sierra Leone. HMS Norfolk has now been stationed off Sierra Leone to provide humanitarian support and assistance. I can today announce to the House that the Government will be urgently releasing another £1 million of humanitarian assistance for the people of Sierra Leone and logistical support for ECOMOG.
708
We still have a long way to go to restore an integrated, stable Sierra Leone. Britain will remain fully committed to alleviating the suffering of its people, and to providing practical and political support for their right to be ruled by the legitimate Government of their choice.
Mr. Hughes: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I associate myself and, I imagine, all other hon. Members, with his statement of concern and condolence to those who have suffered under what, we understand, have been barbarous conditions.
The Government's efforts have been greatly appreciated in Sierra Leone and by the large Sierra Leonean community in Britain, who are hugely concerned about both the present and the future.
I shall be more specific on one or two matters. Will food aid, which I gather is greatly needed, and assistance with rehousing continue? The Foreign Secretary rightly said that large parts of Freetown have been destroyed. There is a large refugee problem and I understand that items such as tents would be greatly appreciated. Help is also needed in relocating people—in a civilian context, helicopters and other forms of transport would be very acceptable.
Secondly, and understandably, the humanitarian agencies withdrew at about the turn of the year. Are the Government able to be part of the international effort to bring them back to do the work for which they are hugely respected and very much needed?
Lastly, may I encourage the Foreign Secretary, along the lines of a sign that he gave to the House, to say that the Government, together with the Commonwealth and their European Union partners, will work for the security of Sierra Leone, especially along its frontiers, so that it can be allowed to redevelop with integrity and without risk of people from outside coming into the country, something that has so often destabilised it in the past?
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said in recognition of efforts. He speaks with authority, because he has a large constituency interest in this matter.
We are indeed looking at what might be the most appropriate aid for Sierra Leone. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has arranged for supplies to be flown out to Sierra Leone. They are being distributed with the help of the helicopter from HMS Norfolk, and that was the prime purpose of stationing HMS Norfolk in the region. We are focusing at the moment on urgent medical supplies, but, obviously, the food situation will be kept under review.
I regret to say to the House that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about the refugee situation. We believe that there are more than 200,000 refugees, which is a large proportion of a relatively small country. They will require substantial assistance for relocation and resettlement. James Jonah, the Minister of Finance and senior Cabinet Minister in the Government of Sierra Leone, is currently in London and is, I believe, having talks tomorrow with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
Finally, of course the humanitarian aspects of this tragedy can be corrected only within a secure framework of stability. That is why we have tried to bring the sides together, and will continue to press for negotiations and mediation to try to resolve this tragic conflict.

709
That requires a two-track approach: first, robust engagement on the military front, which we are supporting, but also negotiation to secure political agreement to disarmament and demobilisation.
Mr. Michael Howard: The whole House will want to join in the expressions of condolence—and, indeed, the tribute—from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the Foreign Secretary. The reports that we have read of the scenes in Freetown are gruesome—none the less so because they have not featured on our television screens to the same extent as atrocities elsewhere in the world.
Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House the remit that has been given to HMS Norfolk and to Brigadier David Richards, the leader of the British military reconnaissance team? Are arms finding their way to the rebels in Sierra Leone from Liberia and elsewhere? If so, is that not a flagrant breach of the United Nations embargo? What action is the UN taking to deal with that breach?
Mr. Cook: Let me clarify the fact that the role of HMS Norfolk is very much in support of humanitarian assistance and relief, and its helicopter has already been making a practical contribution to that. We do not intend for any British military assets to become involved in the military conflict, although we have supplied ECOMOG with non-lethal equipment, such as trucks and communication equipment, and are supporting it with intelligence.
On the question of the supply of arms, the legal position is perfectly clear. There is a UN embargo, which applies to any of the rebel forces or the forces outside the control of ECOMOG or the Sierra Leone Government. Any breach of that embargo would be a crime in British law. I am not, at present, aware of any such breach. I have heard of a press report of such a breach, and that report has been drawn to the attention of Customs and Excise.
I agree absolutely with the right hon. and learned Member that the scenes in Freetown were harrowing. We must make sure that, as we vigorously pursue those who commit atrocities within the European continent, there are no double standards and that we equally vigorously pursue those who are the perpetrators of such atrocities in Africa.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Sierra Leone is a friendly Commonwealth country, and it is right, in its time of travail, that this Government should play such as a leading role in its relief. My right hon. Friend mentioned two points. First, it is alleged that British companies are involved in the supply of arms to the rebels—the AFRC/RUF. How rigorously is Customs and Excise looking into those allegations, which were made two weeks or so ago in the British press? Secondly, President Taylor of Liberia is alleged to be not only supplying arms and men to the AFRC/RUF rebels, but making territorial claims on Sierra Leone. To what extent are we and our allies seeking to exercise leverage on President Taylor? I presume that he is fairly dependent on external aid, so there must be means by which we can put pressure on him.
Mr. Cook: It is not for me to speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, but I am confident that it
710
will rigorously pursue the evidence and any lead that it has about breaches of the embargo. On the other matter that my hon. Friend raises, I sent a strong message to President Taylor on 31 December demanding that all support for the rebels stop immediately. My hon. Friend rightly points out the extent to which Liberia also requires support from the outside world. I pointed out to President Taylor that continuing support for instability and insecurity in Sierra Leone could damage Liberia's standing with international financial institutions. It is important that all countries of the region support the regional strategy of trying to ensure stability and security in Sierra Leone and play their part in backing the ECOMOG forces.
Mr. Tom King: The Foreign Secretary said that he would raise the matter of Sierra Leone with his colleagues in the European Union, but he did not say what he would say to them. What proposals might he have when he raises the matter?
In connection with present assistance, there is the British military mission. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it would be right to give, if required, military assistance to the legitimate Government, although not, of course, to the rebels?
Mr. Cook: With respect to the forthcoming meeting on Monday, I shall make the same appeal to my colleagues in Europe as I have already made to other Governments, including only on Saturday to Madeleine Albright of the United States—that is, for other western nations to join us in ensuring that ECOMOG has the logistical support, the equipment and the finance to continue with its important work.
We should remember that the ECOMOG expeditionary force in Sierra Leone costs Nigeria £1 million a day. That is a large sum for a Government who are wrestling with their legacy from years of abuse and corruption by the previous military junta. In terms of the supply of weapons to Sierra Leone, for some time, the legal position has been that it is not contrary to UN law to supply the Sierra Leone Government, but it would be contrary to the UN resolution and embargo to supply the rebel forces. Sierra Leone is a country with too many forces too well armed. One way to secure peace and stability there would be to dry up the supply of firearms to forces outside the Government, and we shall play our part in doing so.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend look at the wider implications of this conflict? It is one of a number of conflicts in Africa where secessionist groups or attempted coups have led to civil conflict and mass movements of refugees. Is it not time that the international community, particularly the Commonwealth and the European Union, worked collectively towards building an international force or security architecture to assist small countries facing well-armed insurgency?
Mr. Cook: We are very willing to play our part in peacekeeping intervention. In the context of Africa, Britain plays a leading role in training African forces for peacekeeping missions. In terms of troops on the ground, the correct way to proceed is to look to African states, through bodies such as ECOWAS—the Economic Community of West African States—in west Africa and

711
the Organisation of African Unity elsewhere to supply troops for the peacekeeping enterprises. We can certainly supply the training and some of the logistic and communications support, and we are doing much of that in the case of ECOMOG.
The great tragedy of Sierra Leone is that it is one of the poorest countries in the world, yet it is potentially rich in diamonds and in agricultural and fishery resources. It is essential that we provide stability, security and peace, so that those resources can be properly exploited by the people, and not by the armed forces who are rebelling against the Government.
Sir Peter Emery: Is President Kabbah in Freetown or in Conakry, and is our high commissioner, Mr. Penfold, with him? If he is, has the Foreign Office ensured that, this time, the high commissioner has secure communications with London—something that was missing during the previous situation?
Lastly, the Foreign Secretary said that we were supplying non-lethal equipment to ECOMOG. If it requested lethal equipment—which it may well do—would the British Government supply it?
Mr. Cook: On the positioning of the two people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, we understand that President Kabbah remains in Freetown. Mr. Penfold, our high commissioner in Sierra Leone, was withdrawn over Christmas with other British nationals and has since been in Britain. He recently returned to Sierra Leone, and he is currently in Conakry awaiting a flight to take him to Freetown. Once back in Freetown, he will have access to our high commission and to the communications that were always available there.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, we shall consider any such request. However, he will be aware that there is an embargo against Nigeria. Progress in meeting such a request must be balanced against progress within Nigeria on the democratic track, which, at some future time, we are ready to reward with a winding down of the embargo that was placed on the previous military junta.
Ms Diane Abbott: The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the great concern of the large Sierra Leonean community in
712
my constituency and across London about events in Sierra Leone and how grateful they are for the Government's humanitarian effort. He will also be aware that longer-term policy issues arise out of the civil war that has criss-crossed this region since independence. One of those issues is whether, in the future, the House should consider what could be done to regulate companies of mercenaries such as Sandline.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing her appreciation of the British role in Sierra Leone. We are not aware of any British mercenary involvement in the current conflict, but we shall obviously try to ensure that any such activity is within the bounds set by United Nations resolutions, which we shall seek to enforce if any mercenary activity is brought to our attention.
At their meeting in Abidjan at the end of December, the countries of the region called for the withdrawal of all external mercenary involvement in Sierra Leone. Those countries are suspicious that there is substantial mercenary involvement on the side of the rebels. It would be in the interests of the country and the region if that mercenary involvement were stopped.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he is pursuing a negotiated settlement to this dispute, and is not putting international and British forces on one side of a civil war? Does he agree that the election of President Kabbah is under question by many Sierra Leoneans? Would it not be better to promote a settlement in which we work towards the election of a Government elected by the all the people of Sierra Leone under Commonwealth supervision?
Mr. Cook: We should remember that President Kabbah is the elected leader of the Government and the people of Sierra Leone. The rebel forces have a very robust approach to democracy and freedom of expression: they lop off the arms of anyone who disagrees with them. In those circumstances, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's even-handed approach. We are committed to restoring the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone at some appropriate point. It will be necessary to negotiate a political settlement that provides for the demobilisation and demilitarisation of the rebel forces, but we must not be tricked into thinking that these are legitimate rebels fighting a civil war with any degree of popular support.

Points of Order
3.50 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Foreign Office questions, the Foreign Secretary—perhaps inadvertently—gave an entirely wrong answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on the question of the return of Senator Pinochet to Chile. The Foreign Secretary said that Senator Pinochet could not be allowed to return to Chile without setting aside the rule of law. It has never been in dispute, and was expressly—
Madam Speaker: Order. I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished Member of this House. However, he knows that this is an argument that he must have with the Government, and not by means of a point of order. He must find other methods through the Order Paper and through debate in this House to pursue this matter.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a wholly different point of order, of which I have given you prior notice, Madam Speaker. In column 631 of yesterday's Hansard, you will see that I made some critical comments of the former Paymaster General. The then Deputy Speaker in the Chair intervened and said:
"We should remind ourselves that, unless there is a substantive motion before us, we should not criticise other Members of the House."—[Official Report, 18 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 631.]
If that rule were to be implemented in the strict way expressed by the Deputy Speaker, there would be no political debate. I suspect that the Deputy Speaker went
714
somewhat further than he may have intended. Perhaps, either on this or some subsequent occasion, you might care to clarify the position.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, and I have read the ruling of my Deputy to which he has drawn attention. There is a fine line to be drawn between criticism of a Member's political action and their personal conduct which was not crossed in the exchanges yesterday. I am satisfied that, following the remarks made about the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), it was appropriate for my Deputy to caution the House. I believe that it was a caution that Members should not reflect on the personal conduct of the former Paymaster General. As the House well knows, the personal conduct of hon. Members can be discussed only on a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms. This protection, which is afforded to all right hon. and hon. Members, is set out in the current edition of "Erskine May", pages 384-5. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for letting me put this on record.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    HOUSE OF LORDS
    Mrs. Margaret Beckett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Dr. Jack Cunningham, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Secretary Michael and Mr. Geoffrey Hoon presented a Bill to end membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage; to make related provision about disqualifications for voting at elections to, and for membership of, the House of Commons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 34].
Orders of the Day

  Greater London Authority Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  (Clauses 1 to 4 and Schedules 1 and 2)
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order [15 December].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Greater London Authority Bill
    Clause 1

      THE AUTHORITY
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      3.53 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth: I would like to take a brief opportunity to set out the reasons for my opposition to the clause, which stem from my reservations about how the Bill itself—and, therefore, the clause—came about. The Bill is the result of the use of the technique of referendum. I believe that the referendum is a dubious means of arriving at complex political decisions.
      The decision—which, on the face of it, looked seductively simple, as does the clause—must be one of the more complex that we have encountered not just in this Parliament, but for a long time. The relevant question, however, was put to the people of London in a referendum. That in itself was bad enough, because, as I have always contended, it is always difficult to reduce a complex political question legitimately to a simple proposition that requires a simple yes or no answer. In this case, the crime was compounded because the Government failed to put to the people of London a question that would distinguish their desire for, on the one hand, a mayor as a component of the Greater London Authority and, on the other, an assembly. The clause is based on a false premise, because an invalid question was put to the people of London, so the answer that they gave was also invalid.
      I am glad to say that one of my hon. Friends has introduced a private Member's Bill that will give us an opportunity to consider the matter, but a serious question that we should already have considered about referendums as a mechanism for political decision making concerns the turnout. As we all know, pathetically few people were sufficiently engaged by the question to take the trouble to vote in the referendum in London.
      I have heard Ministers claiming that there is "overwhelming" support for the proposition adumbrated in the clause, but we know that only about one in three Londoners were sufficiently overwhelmed to bother to vote. If we are to have such abuse of the technique of referendum, we should quickly have a long-overdue look at the way in which the referendum is used as a mechanism for political decision making. I hope that we will not be further subjected to the claim that the people of London came flocking to endorse the proposition, because that is nonsense and will be seen as such.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the referendum was held
      716
      on the same day as the London borough elections and that the turnout on that day was lower than in previous London borough elections?
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point, which allows me to say, strictly in passing, that I am proud of the fact that my borough had the lowest yes vote of any borough in Greater London.
      The clause encapsulates the basis of the whole Bill, which is extremely undesirable because it imposes a whole new layer of bureaucracy on the people of London. It has been said, and it will no doubt be said again as we continue our discussions, that the mayor and assembly will somehow be a benefit to the people of London. I have been in the political business long enough to be dubious about the proposition that the more layers of bureaucrats we have, the greater is the benefit to the people; but that is what is being argued.
      We will have to spend a long time considering in detail the proposition that more bureaucrats and politicians will bring greater benefits to the people of London. Londoners already have elected borough councillors, Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament, all beavering away to give effect to their wishes and desires. Now they will have an elected mayor and assembly members.
      I will not go into detail about the cost of the bureaucracy, buildings, salaries, expenses, special assistants and all the other nonsense, to say nothing of the travelling this and living that—I suspect that we may return to all that at greater length later—because the real point is not only the undesirability in principle of more politicians and bureaucrats, but the conflicts that will inevitably arise among all the different elected representatives of the people of London.
      Conflicts are bound to develop as the powers of the mayor and the assembly develop, inevitably at the expense of the boroughs. I hope that that problem will come out as we consider the Bill, although I do not know how we are to resolve it, because if we agree to the clause, all the nonsenses in the other 250-odd clauses will follow as night follows day.
      Ministers must give the Committee some idea of how the Bill will work to the benefit of the people of London, those for whom we are supposed to be legislating, when it contains a prescription for continuing and growing conflict at every level in the making and implementation of policy between the people elected, supposedly, to represent the people of London.
      4 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall intervene on the right hon. Gentleman only once. How does he explain the logic of his position, unless he is arguing that it is better to keep the status quo under which Parliament and the Government of the whole country—irrespective of their majority in London—make decisions for London rather than those decisions being made by people chosen by Londoners, who may be argued to have a more local interest?
      Is not the logic of what the right hon. Gentleman says that there should be only one Government in Britain at all levels of decision making? Yet, everywhere else in Britain there are tiers of government. He used to represent a

      717
      constituency in Worcestershire where there are parish, district and county councils. In Scotland, there are other tiers of government. Is he arguing that we should have only one tier of elected representatives for all the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but the direct answer is no, although I would disagree vehemently with holding up the administration of our counties as some sort of model. The hon. Gentleman's question is perfectly valid, but I challenge his assumption that London is a political entity that merits the sort of representation that the Bill will impose on it. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman because I am comfortable with the status quo, as I believe that the boroughs legitimately represent the peoples of London in all their diversity. I am glad to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who shares the borough of Bromley with me.
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: And me.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) shares it too—the borough of Bromley is fully represented in the Chamber. One reason why the good folk of Bromley were the least enthusiastic about the Bill is that they feel absolutely no commonality of interest with people not just in central London, but with the people in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I say nothing detrimental about those constituencies or their boroughs, but my hon. Friends may agree that the common interests that the people of those area share with Bromley are, to say the least, minimal.
      The core of the difficulty with the Bill is that it seeks to treat the length, breadth, might and greatness of London as if the capital were one simple-minded political entity that can be legitimately represented by an assembly. I challenge that assumption; it was wrong from the start. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) posed a legitimate question, but I am content with the status quo, and I believe that added bureaucracy will be unnecessary and costly, and will give rise to conflicts that could damage the interests of Londoners in all their diversity. Let me put it beyond all doubt that I am totally against clause 1, which is misconceived and wrongly based, and which will damage the people of London.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Committee stage begins a long process that will pass from the full light of the Chamber to the slightly less full light of the Committee Rooms upstairs, where the hours will be longer and the labours no less hard. The Liberal Democrats support clause 1, but I wish to raise one matter arising from what the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions said on Second Reading when we explored the nature of the beast to come.
      As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has clearly grasped, clause 1 sets up sets up the authority, with the words:
      "There shall be an authority for Greater London".
      On 14 December, I sought to get out of the Secretary of State whether that authority was equivalent to regional government. It had started off being described as such,
      718
      but then it became city government and local government. I thought that the issue was worth pursuing and the right hon. Gentleman's answer is worth repeating. He said:
      "It is in between, in a way".—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 624.]
      That comment lends itself to further exploration.
      One could argue validly, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has done, that Greater London is not an entity and should not have countywide or citywide government. However, some of us have accepted that the development of metropolitan London with a green belt around it, makes Greater London a natural, large metropolitan community. One sees that that is the case when one flies into London.
      Obviously, there is a greater south-east region. However, if the Government are committed to regional government, as the Secretary of State and Ministers say that they are, what is the region for which they envisage that we will get such government as it affects London? If it is to be Greater London—some people may not like that—and we are to have a London development agency, which is meant to be the embryo for regional government, as are such agencies in the rest of the country, why are we not to have regional government? It could be developed later and its powers could be varied, but why can we not say honestly and openly now, "This is regional government"?

      Of course, London is different from other regions, such as the west midlands, which is not one place—Birmingham is represented by one authority, Coventry is next door and so forth. London is one place, but it is a city state-type region. Many capital cities have their own governments, for example, Washington and Canberra. They are a sort of variation on a theme—another tier of government above local government.
      I hope that the Minister will tell us that London is to be the region that the Government will recognise for regional government purposes and that we are committed to having such government. It is a serious matter and his colleagues on the Labour Benches will be interested to hear the answer. We Liberal Democrats would support that idea. If that is to be the case, why not say so now? Why not say that the assembly is the embryo—the starting point of the Greater London regional authority, which will provide London with regional government—and get on with the job?
      Finally, if that is the case, I accept that how one combines citywide and regional government is an issue. I will not argue that London should be parallel with and similar to the other English regions. I do not think that it should be for reasons that are self-evident. My hon. Friends and I are clear that Greater London requires government to be delivered by an authority above borough level. We disagree with the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and we associate ourselves with those expressed by the great majority of, Londoners.
      Mr. Forth indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the view in favour is not held by the great majority, but all the opinion polls show that the great majority of Londoners want a democratic regional tier of government to be re-established. They would prefer elected representatives to

      719
      make decisions about their city rather than civil servants. On that basis, we believe that we must start by saying that we will have a greater regional authority.
      Mr. Forth: I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman continues to peddle that nonsense. If Londoners support that idea, as he claims, why did they not bother to turn out and cast a vote when given the opportunity to do so in the referendum? It is one thing to ask questions in an opinion poll and, if we are to run the country by opinion polls, I will offer the deal that I always offer on such occasions to any colleague: can we have a binding poll on the return of capital punishment? If the hon. Gentleman intends to rest his case on that argument, I have no doubt that he will sign up wholeheartedly to such a poll.
      Mr. Hughes: I will not be distracted by an opinion poll on capital punishment, except to say that there are differences between the way in which one settles constitutional and ethical issues—they are always entirely different.
      I would argue—as a Scot, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should understand this—that it is just as much the settled will of the people of Greater London that there should be Londonwide democratic government as it is the settled will of the people of Scotland that there should be a Parliament in Scotland. Since the Greater London council was abolished, whatever the criticisms of the GLC era—or, in smaller boundaries, of the London county council before that—whenever asked, most of the people of London have said that they want such government. I have never seen an opinion poll that has not shown that. Of course, a majority of Londoners did not go to the polling booths for the local election day referendum, but Conservatives have often been elected in local elections with small votes on small turnouts of 20 or 30 per cent. The Government rightly want to increase turnout, as we do.
      One reason why there was not a massive turnout was that it was obvious from opinion polling that there would be an overwhelming yes vote. With the best will in the world, I pay tribute to the Minister. The Secretary of State turned out to play football at Wembley—not a pretty sight but he was there. I made an effort in the campaign, appearing on buses with Ministers and others. There was even a song produced. It did not take off, but we tried to get some interest going. It was so obvious that people wanted London government back that many thought that they did not need to turn out. If it had been a needle match, the number of people voting would have risen.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst argued that there was not great enthusiasm in Bromley. That may be true; Bromley is a place of lesser enthusiasm than some parts of the country. Even in his borough, the majority of those who cast votes voted in favour. Even though he is in the borough of the lukewarm, the lukewarm were in favour of Greater London.
      I hope that the Minister accepts that this is a probing debate about regional government, which we favour. Why cannot London have it, and have it this year?
      Mr. John Horam: I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and
      720
      Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We have two concerns. First, as he rightly noted, we are on the outer fringe of London. The position is worse than he proclaimed, because my constituents in Orpington would rather be in Kent, as they were historically, than in Greater London. Sadly, they were moved by a Conservative Government.
      The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The hon. Gentleman was not a Conservative then.
      Mr. Horam: That is as may be, but, happily, I opposed the creation of the GLC and was proved to be right because it was later abolished by a Conservative Government.
      Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, we are concerned about the level of bureaucracy. While I admit that the representatives will be democratically elected, there will be more councillors, more bodies and all the spin-offs that will flow from that fact. It is a retrograde step, and typical of the Government, both in respect of London and of the proposals for devolution, that they have come up with dense, complicated and expensive conclusions and proposals.
      Equally, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, it is fair to say that there was strong support for a voice for London. All opinion polls suggested that people were sorry that at various times, such as when bidding for the Olympic games, there was not a person or body to stand up and support a case for London in the wider scheme of things. That is one reason why people supported a new voice for London when it was put to them in the referendum in the whole Greater London area, although they did not vote for the re-creation of the old Greater London authority.
      There was a way through the dilemma. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey would agree that in a sense, the case for a voice for London is an inner London case that is at its strongest in the sort of area that he represents, where there are genuine problems with education, health, transport and living standards that should be tackled on a broader basis than is possible under the arrangements that were created long ago by a Conservative Government.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: I accept that the further out one goes, the more one sees that areas, such as the one he represents, that historically have belonged to the counties of Surrey and Kent feel less a part of Greater London. When the Committee considers voting systems, some of us will argue that we should try to group areas together in natural communities, because the people of Kent in London have a view that naturally differs from that of the people of Surrey in London.
      Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my point. There is a solution to the problem which is much simpler than the one the Government have proposed: it is to group together some of the inner London boroughs, perhaps in a new borough—a single borough, without two or three tiers—covering Westminster, Kensington, parts of Southwark and Lambeth and so on. It would be a central London borough similar to what is found in Paris,

      721
      where there is a Paris municipal authority covering not the whole of Paris as we know it, but an area that is roughly enclosed by the peripherique and which is but a small part of the total urban area of Paris. That municipal authority deals successfully with the problems of central Paris; similarly, with no extra councillors—indeed, with a reduction in the number of local authorities, because several would have been combined into one—we could have a body that could speak for London and deal with the problems of inner London.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: I speak as a former leader of Croydon council. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the strategic issues of the environment, the economy and an integrated transport system for London must embrace outer London as well as inner London? The idea of having a separately defined inner London is obviously ridiculous.
      Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me, because, as has already been said, the issues to which he refers go well beyond the boundaries of Greater London. About 17,000 people a day commute into the city from my constituency, and many pass through Orpington as they come from Sevenoaks and beyond, so it is clear that we have to consider an area greater than that which will be covered by the Greater London authority. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), a former Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, described as a geographical question, involving geographical balance.
      Some issues affecting London go far wider than the Greater London authority area—for example, transport issues affecting road and rail networks go right to the coast—whereas questions of health and education are far narrower, with inner London issues differing from those of Bromley, Uxbridge and so on. The Government have had to solve that problem. Sadly, they have not come up with a simple effective solution, but one that is overcomplicated, over-expensive and messy.
      Mr. Richard Ottaway: The one undisputed fact is that, in the referendum, the majority either said no, or expressed no opinion. That cannot be ignored.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: Is it not true that, under the previous Administration, in ballots on whether schools should opt out, the Conservatives had a rule that a vote not cast was a yes vote? Using that method, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of having a Greater London authority.
      Mr. Ottaway: I have absolutely no idea whether the hon. Gentleman is right or wrong on that point.
      One of the interesting features of having taken all the stages of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill on the Floor of the House, and of having had the referendum since then, is that, now that we have reached the debate on the real thing, many of the arguments—those on the fundamental principles—already feel rather well rehearsed. Although a huge amount of the detail in the Bill before us will be debated upstairs in Standing Committee, certain key facts have emerged.
      First, it has now been accepted by the Conservative party and by the Government that the Conservatives were right to abolish the Greater London council. We make no
      722
      apology for having done so: it was in our 1983 manifesto. The current Government, in their determination not to return to the bad old ways of the GLC, have belatedly recognised that we were right and that Labour's opposition at the time was misconceived. The Government have added that to the long list of matters on which they have changed their mind. As John Maynard Keynes, whose views appear to be gaining ascendancy in the Labour party, said:
      "When the circumstances change, my opinion changes."
      Many good reasons have been given for abolishing the GLC: it was bloated, over-bureaucratic, inefficient, incompetent and used as a regional power base for party politics. Its management of London's transport was so hopeless that we had to take that power away from the GLC. Its leaders called for the abolition of the monarchy and its hostility to business was an embarrassment.
      Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman's statement that abolition of the GLC was in the Conservative manifesto is found to be incorrect—I believe that it was not a manifesto commitment—will he make a formal apology for misleading the Committee?
      Mr. Ottaway: If I am not correct, I shall withdraw my remark—that goes without saying.
      It was no surprise that London's economy took off shortly after the abolition of the GLC, and has been sustained ever since. However, with hindsight, there is possibly another reason why abolishing the GLC was the right thing to do.
      London is a city of villages. All of its boroughs have a different complexion. Historic Greenwich, with its cultural centres, is very different from the Manhattan skyline of Croydon, with its focus on the business community. Both areas have their problems—deprivation, unemployment and poor services—but each has its strong points, and its own identity and approach. That local identity is represented by the boroughs.
      In place of the GLC, the London boroughs, as unitary authorities, have been strengthened. In all honesty, some boroughs are better run than others. However, there is no doubt that every borough is run better than it was run under the old GLC regime. The reason is clear: each borough has its own notion of its community's aims and objectives. The parameters for councillors and officers are clearly defined: it is their patch and they know how to get on with it.
      That is why London is the greatest city on earth. One could not find another city that has such a rich heritage and so wide a variety of cultures. One could not hope to find another capital that is so full of good humour, civilisation and energy. London is an economic powerhouse, an artistic showcase and, above all, an incredibly creative, tolerant and free-spirited town in which to live.
      The Conservatives are the first to recognise that the world has moved on since 1986. It is a fast-moving, media-driven world and we are the first to acknowledge that we have developed our view about the need for co-ordination in London. However, we believe in a much lighter touch than do the Government or the Liberal Democrats, who take an even more heavy-handed approach. On Second Reading, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and

      723
      Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), described our vision for London as "thin gruel". Despite the way in which he made that remark, I suggest that there is nothing wrong with thin gruel—indeed, the hon. Gentleman will find it on the menu of most breakfast emporiums because it is healthy.
      We believe that our approach and our vision for London, involving a lighter touch and the mayor co-ordinating the London boroughs, is far more in tune with what London needs. To that extent, the ultimate challenge for the mayor will lie in his ability to co-ordinate the London boroughs. That relationship with the London boroughs is our greatest concern, and it is a factor that we shall address in subsequent amendments. We believe in an authority in which the mayor is able to input London's needs at Cabinet level and to sell London internationally. However, we are concerned that the mayor is not being given any real freedom to manoeuvre.
      The Secretary of State retains ultimate powers of override in every key area. The all-embracing power of clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to prevent the mayor from doing anything he wants. A complete straitjacket of reserve powers governs policy and action. Another major concern is that the mayor and his office will set up a ministerial rather than a local government model. The mayor will not have to disclose the material that is used to brief him when making decisions, nor will he have to give evidence to the assembly.
      The mayor will have great patronage through his appointment to various functional bodies and sway over planning and development issues. However, his decisions will not necessarily be debated in public, be open to scrutiny or subject to clear, open and independent financial and legal advice as would occur under the normal local government regime that every council operates. None the less, we support the principle of the mayor, and it logically follows that we support the principle of an authority. We have many suggestions to make about the conduct of the authority and the way in which that can be approved. However, so that the debate can develop we accept that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Raynsford: The purpose of the clause is simple and straightforward: it establishes the Greater London authority and, in doing so, rectifies an historic injustice done to London in 1986.
      The Bill restores a democratic, citywide government to London, so the people of London will once again be able to elect their own authority—their mayor and their assembly—to represent them. They will no longer be dependent on the wishes of Cabinet Ministers, shadowy quangos, joint boards and other unaccountable bodies, which, for the past 13 years, have ultimately made the key decisions about the future of our capital city.
      The Bill also provides for the authority to have the functions that are transferred to, conferred on or imposed on the authority by this Bill or any other.
      The Government were elected on a promise to create a new authority for London. We set out our proposals on how we would honour that promise in our White Paper in March last year. We submitted that White Paper to the people of London in a referendum last May and they
      724
      voted yes by a majority of 72 per cent. The Bill gives effect to the proposals set out in the White Paper endorsed by the people of London.
      Some hon. Members have revealed that they still hanker after life in the past. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) clearly does not want to believe what has happened in 1997 and 1998. I know that it is painful for him, but the world moves on. He is no longer part of a large majority on the Government Benches; he is in opposition. The people of London voted overwhelmingly for Labour Members in the 1997 general election.
      Mr. Forth: No they didn't.
      Mr. Raynsford: They did. They voted for 57 Labour Members and only 11 Conservatives in 1997. That was a decisive victory for the Labour party.
      Mr. John Randall: Does the Minister recall that, a year after the abolition of the Greater London council, 57 Conservative Members were returned in London?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman could not have made my case better. It is a measure of how the people of London have changed their view about who should represent them in Parliament that we now have an overwhelming majority of Labour Members. The fact that the people of London are keen to have their own citywide authority again is demonstrated by the fact that such a large majority of them voted in the referendum in Bromley, in Hillingdon and in every other London borough. Whatever the wishes of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, his electors gave a majority vote to our proposals.
      Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, I felt sympathetic to his proposition that there should be fewer politicians. We are giving effect to that. We are creating a small, streamlined authority consisting of a mayor and 25 assembly members for a city of 7 million people. One will not find a more streamlined, cost-effective, democratic assembly anywhere in the world. This is a model of non-bureaucratic administration.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathy, which I shall cherish for a long time to come. How can he argue that there will be fewer politicians in London as a result of the Bill? Fewer than how many? Today, we know how many politicians are being carried on our shoulders and are spending our taxes. Surely the Minister must accept that if the measure is passed, there will be more politicians and bureaucrats in London. How can he conclude otherwise?
      Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman obviously cannot remember the size of the GLC, which he so disliked. We are proposing an authority that is approximately a quarter of the size of the GLC. As I have stressed to him, this will be the smallest, most streamlined authority of any major city in the world. It will be an example of good, efficient administration, not a bureaucratic organisation.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has gone back over ground that we covered on Second Reading. He would like to use

      725
      the term "regional" to describe the body that we are creating, but that is not appropriate. As the capital city of our country, London is unique and it requires a unique solution. It is going to have a unique solution—a citywide authority. Regions outside London will require their own model. The hon. Gentleman recognised that there was a difference between the kind of pattern appropriate in a densely occupied city with a large population and that which applies in other regions which are a mixture of rural and urban areas.
      4.30 pm
      The Government are committed to moving towards directly elected regional government, where there is popular support for it. The creation of voluntary regional chambers in the regions outside London is a first step in that direction, but the proposals in the Bill are not intended to be a template for regional patterns of government elsewhere. They are intended to meet the specific needs of London for effective government in London.
      We are trying to respond to the needs of London. The legislation sets out a new form of governance which recognises the need for a strategic overview in the design and implementation of policies which will affect the lives of more than 7 million people. It will be a Greater London authority, not a regional authority.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I was originally going to intervene on the Minister to say that in the Chamber there is no better example of moving on than the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who started life as a young communist and has ended up as a right-wing Tory. The right hon. Gentleman should know about moving on.
      I understand what the Minister is saying. My colleagues and I do not dissent from the view that London is entirely different because it is a metropolitan area and a capital city. I am trying to discover where the Government are putting it in the scheme of English constitutional reform. Does the fact that London is different mean that there will not be regional government for London in addition to the citywide government being created by the Bill? If we are to have a unique form of government, the Government should be honest and say as much, and not introduce all the accoutrements of local government such as the local government boundary commission and local government rules. Let us call it citywide government or unique citywide Londonwide government; let us rejoice in its uniqueness and capital city pre-eminence, but please do not let us call it local government when it is really no such thing.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is tilting at windmills. We have not called it local government. He heard me say that we are proposing a unique form of governance for a unique city. We are creating a new form of citywide government for our capital city. I hope that we have agreement on that. I shall not be tempted into a discussion of the ramifications of regional government because that would take a long time and take us far from the matters in hand—
      Mr. Hughes: It is because the Minister has no ideas.
      Mr. Raynsford: I do indeed have all sorts of ideas, but I shall not debate them with the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have just been to check on this contentious issue with the Library, and I
      726
      think that I might be able to enlighten the Committee. The Library assures me that London is one of the nine regions in England designated under NUTS—a very appropriate expression. NUTS stands for the nomenclature of units of territorial statistics, as designated by—guess who?—our old friend the European Union. In order to organise us to suit its affairs, the EU has designated the United Kingdom as comprising 12 regions—Scotland, Wales, Ireland, London and eight others—so London is a region. Basically, all this is done at the insistence of the EU. London and the rest of us are being slotted in according to the EU' s designation, but the fact remains that London is a region.
      Mr. Raynsford: Hearing the hon. Lady talking about NUTS tempts me to go way beyond the subject in hand. I assure her that we are setting in place a system of citywide government for London which is, for certain purposes, treated as a region. However, unlike any other region in the United Kingdom, it is a uniquely urban area. It is not the mixture of urban and rural areas covering a much larger geographical area, which is the characteristic of the other regions. The hon. Lady will accept that there are differences.
      The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) seemed to hark back not just to 1986, when the GLC was abolished, but to 1888 when the London county council was established. He seemed to be arguing the case for an inner London authority, but not an authority covering the rest of London. I have to tell him that the world has moved on a great deal since 1888. He also raised the interesting question of whether there should be a new constituency. I am happy to be able to tell the Committee that the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Local Government Commission on the constituencies that will be adopted for the Greater London assembly elections. Those constituencies—14 in total—will be as recommended by the commission. There will, therefore, be new constituencies, and members of the assembly will be elected in part from those constituencies. The other 11 members will be elected from the lists. We shall discuss that subject in later debates.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), speaking as official spokesman for the Opposition, once again had difficulty with the referendum. Whatever conclusions he draws about how people who did not vote might have voted, in this country, we treat election results on the basis of those people who voted, and of those people who voted, 72 per cent. voted in favour of our proposition. By any count, that was a large and decisive majority. I make no apology whatever for repeating the fact that we are acting on the basis of the support of the people of London.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, South made no apology for the abolition of the Greater London council. That is curious because, whereas our position is strongly endorsed by the people of London, the former Conservative Government abolished the GLC in the face of the obvious overwhelming hostility of the people of London, who wanted their own democratic citywide authority. That Government left London, alone of all major cities in the world, with no one to speak for it—

      727
      with no one representing its interests in the United Kingdom or overseas. That situation is a problem, which we are now remedying.
      Mr. Ottaway: But the Minister will recognise that, in his Green Paper, "New Leadership for London", he says:
      "This is not an exercise in bringing back the Greater London Council".
      Mr. Raynsford: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. We know that the world moves on, and we are devising new models, appropriate to our period. That does not mean that we believe that the previous Government were right to abolish the GLC; it was a mistake. It was an affront to democracy in London, and we are remedying that, but we are devising a new model of governance appropriate for the 21st century instead of harking back—as the hon. Member for Orpington does—to models of governance created in the 19th century.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, South spoke about limitations on the mayor's powers. He dug up some hoary old chestnuts about clause 27. Before we reach that clause, I should tell him that it is part of a slice of the Bill that relates to the mayor's overall powers. It follows clause 25, which gives the mayor wide-ranging powers. Clause 27 contains limitations specifically to protect the interests of London boroughs. Everything that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party have said suggests to me that they support the London boroughs, and would not want the mayor to have powers to do things that the London boroughs are expressly charged with doing. That is the purpose of clause 27, and anyone who reads it carefully—as critics who have accused us of unreasonably limiting the mayor's power should—will see that the mayor's powers are extensive, but that they are limited in respect of specific functions which should be discharged either by the boroughs or by other authorities. The aim is to avoid duplication.
      I also put it to the hon. Member for Croydon, South—he will find this an uncomfortable fact, which we shall hear more often in these debates—that the argument about our limiting the mayor's power is pretty rich coming from the Conservatives. When, in 1962, the Conservative party—the hon. Gentleman was probably a member of that party at the time, unlike the hon. Member for Orpington—introduced the Bill that became the London Government Act 1963, which created the Greater London council, it contained 94 clauses, so it was about a third of the length of the Bill before us, but it contained 140 references to the powers of the Secretary of State and Ministers to control that authority. That is even more references than there are in our Bill. The record of that Government will be exposed if ever the hon. Member for Croydon, South or his colleagues try to accuse us of unreasonably restricting the power of the Greater London authority.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because we are on the first clause of a long furrow. I am in an especially strong position to know that,
      728
      in 1962, the Minister was a Minister, not a Secretary of State. Unintentionally, the Minister has misled the Committee.
      Mr. Raynsford: I hope that I made it clear that the 140 references were to powers available to Ministers and Secretaries of State. There were 123 references to the powers of the Minister and 17 to the powers of the Secretary of State. We have done our research carefully. The relevant Minister was a Minister, and he made a very interesting point, on which the right hon. Gentleman may want to ponder. In response to Opposition criticism of reserve powers, the Minister said:
      "My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has reserve powers, but, like reserve powers in other fields, they are for use only in the last resort."—[Official Report, 10 December 1962; Vol. 669, c. 54.]
      That argument played well in 1962. We shall see how it plays in 1999.
      Clause 1 gives effect to a manifesto commitment. It creates the Greater London authority. It is short, simple and straightforward. It is hugely important for the people of London, and I commend it to the Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE ASSEMBLY
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in clause 2, page 1, line 15, after 'of, insert 'Greater'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, after 'the', insert 'Greater'.
      Mr. Hughes: Although this will be a relatively short debate, it raises an issue about which people ask a very simple question. If we are setting up under the Greater London Authority Bill the Greater London authority, why do we not call the mayor the Greater London mayor and the assembly the Greater London assembly? That is not just a technical question. The logic behind the debate on clause 1 stand part was that we are creating unique, citywide Greater London government. But, there is an historical legacy of a problem of description and understanding.
      I should like to put on the record that I was treated by the Lord Mayor of London to a very nice lunch. He invited members of all parties to the Mansion house following his election. We all happily responded and discussed matters with him.
      Over recent years, the City of London has argued very strongly for its continuing existence. Over the past 10 years, I think that it has persuaded virtually all hon. Members that it is effectively a business district, like those in Melbourne, Sydney and the like, and that, although it is an anomalous local authority, it nevertheless ought to continue to exist. I and my hon. Friends accept that.
      The City has accepted, however, that it must revamp its structures to create modernised city government. It has this very year presented to Parliament a Bill in order to do so, which we shall debate another time.

      729
      My hon. Friends and I want the Bill to go further than the City has proposed, although at least it will extend the franchise beyond the 5,000 people who live in the City and are registered to vote.
      Just to show how anomalous the situation is—I shall not elaborate—I am entitled to vote in the City because I am still a member of the chambers in the Temple from which I practised as a barrister before I was elected. As a tenant of those chambers, which is outside the City and a separate microcosm of government, I can elect ward councillors who govern the Temple.
      Mr. Raynsford: That is absurd.
      Mr. Hughes: Indeed. Such an anomaly needs to be considered.
      There are greater anomalies, too. Traditionally, although there has been no legal bar to women being promoted to the highest office, it has somehow not happened very often. There are other issues, such as recognising the right to participate of all who work in the City, from the big firms to the small traders—newsagents and so on.
      4.45 pm
      The City needs to reform its structures, which it has started to do. I pay tribute to the present leader of the City council, Judith Mayhew, and her predecessor, who with their colleagues have started that process.
      If one went round the world and asked people about London, the pictures that would come to mind are not images of new Britannia and rule Britannia, but the old images. They include, I am happy to say, Tower bridge, half of which is in my constituency, and the Tower of London, St. Paul's cathedral, and the Lord Mayor of London.
      London has two cities. One of the representatives of the other city is present in the Chamber with us—the City of Westminster, where we sit. It has been argued that London should have three cities, and that Southwark, the other great early part of London, should be recognised. I am serious about that, and I hope that before long Southwark will be given city status too.
      However, those are local government cities. The Cities of London and of Westminster have lord mayors, whereas the rest of the boroughs, including Southwark at present, have mayors. If the office of Lord Mayor of London is to continue—the City has no reason to change that, and there would be no logic to doing so—there will obviously be confusion from next year between the Lord Mayor of London and the mayor of London.
      Around the country, people do not usually know whether someone is a lord mayor or a mayor. The mayors of Southwark are often called lord mayors, but they are not. People do not remember which cities and local authorities have mayors, and which have lord mayors. We know that there is to be an election for a mayor in London. Why do we not call the new postholder the mayor of Greater London? That would avoid confusion with the Lord Mayor of London, who will continue to be elected by the City—by more modern democratic procedures, one hopes. The title that I propose for the new mayor would make it clear that that person spoke on behalf of Greater London.
      730
      As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) observed, there will be a difference between the mayor of London, under my proposal, and the mayor of Paris, for example. The mayor of Paris is the mayor not of greater Paris, but of the inner part of Paris, whereas the new London mayor will be the mayor of the area covered by the Euro-region, the citywide area, the 33 local authorities of Greater London. It would be no bad thing to change the name, avoid confusion and give the office holder a correct job description.
      Mr. John McDonnell: As the hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the City Corporation, I did not want to miss the opportunity of passing a message back. One way of avoiding confusion would be to abolish the City Corporation. The proposals for reform promoted by the City Corporation are so feeble that they require extensive redrafting before they will satisfy the House.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman properly raises two issues. The first is whether the City of London should be abolished as a local authority area. I have been persuaded that it should stay.
      On the second point, I join the hon. Gentleman. I am not satisfied that the proposals represent a reform of the City structures that would make it a democratically elected local authority for a business district. The City has begun that process, but it has been timid, and I want it to be braver. I hope that when the House deals with the matter, we will say that and the City will accept it. We may have a battle to persuade the City to withdraw its proposals and produce others. I share the hon. Gentleman's view, and I hope that we can agree in future.
      The logic of the amendments extends to the assembly. The Government rejoice in the fact that some members of the assembly will have constituency interests. The Minister for London and Construction rightly announced today that the Government have accepted the recommendations of the boundary commissioners. Had he announced that the Government had not accepted those recommendations, there would have been trouble. We shall return to the fact that the Bill gives great powers to the Secretary of State, including the power to draw the boundaries. We think that that power should be taken away from Secretaries of State and given to independent boundary commissions. There is a top-up list of members who will represent London as a whole, and the logic is that they represent Greater London, not simply part of London. Therefore, there is a strong case for the name to be changed so that they and the assembly have an accurate job description.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Lord Mayors of the cities of London and Westminster. We are to create a mayor of London who, he says, should be called the mayor of Greater London. Is it not slightly demeaning that the mayor of this new, quasi-regional authority, representing the greatest city in the world, should have as its head, only a mayor, not a lord mayor?
      Mr. Hughes: We are getting into an interesting constitutional corner here. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. In 1999, on the eve of a new millennium, to call people in high office lords all the time is a bit out-dated. We have moved on. I am serious

      731
      about that. We need a less deferential society where the senior citizen, whether elected directly or indirectly, is the mayor. We should get rid of the word lord from the title of Lord Mayor, not just in London but around the country. We have an unusual conjunction. The cities of London and Westminster both have lord mayors, so the obvious way forward is to make this other person the mayor of Greater London.
      My last point, which the hon. Gentleman or someone else might have intervened to make, is a technical, "I am cleverer than you", point. It could be argued that, as there is no London assembly, we do not need to call the assembly the Greater London assembly to differentiate it.
      The Minister for London and Construction has no doubt been briefed to reply. [Interruption.] I understand that the Minister for Transport in London is to respond. I rejoice at the breadth and variety of the ministerial team, and the Whip, who will never be forgotten.
      I should like the Minister to do what I have seen her do once before in the House, which is to stand up, put aside her briefing notes, speak from the heart and use her intellectual powers to respond to the proposition, the case for which is so overwhelming that I hope that she will accept it. I make it quietly, generously and, I hope, persuasively. Let us have a mayor of Greater London and a Greater London assembly, and leave the cities to have their lord mayors for us long as that title remains unreformed.
      The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): If I do not respond from my heart, it is not because the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has not played his usual emotive cards.
      I join the hon. Gentleman, as do the Government, in welcoming the moves that the City is making in democratising its institutions. I am second to none in my admiration for Judith Mayhew, who is not only a remarkable woman but is doing a remarkably effective job where she is.
      There may be confusion between the title of mayor of London and Lord Mayor of London for visitors to these islands. It has been my experience that, when such visitors refer to the Lord Mayor of London, they inevitably presuppose that his name is Dick Whittington and that he is accompanied everywhere that he goes by a black cat.
      Inasmuch as the Lord Mayor presents a glorious figurehead, there is an enormous benefit to the City of London. We are none of us in any doubt about the importance of the City of London, as one of the most dynamic financial centres in the world, to the economy of these islands. But there is no relationship whatever between the job of lord mayor and what we are proposing by way of a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly for London.
      I was somewhat disappointed that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey harked back to previous debates. As my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction has already had occasion to say, ours is the only major capital city in the world that does not have an elected authority.
      Our proposals—I am delighted to blight the hopes of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—were supported by a majority of those who
      732
      voted in the referendum, in every London borough, including his own. They will provide the people of London with what we promised in our manifesto and what they voted for—a directly elected mayor of London and a London assembly.
      We are in the process of modernising the government of the capital and giving power to the people of London, and they are most certainly not fools. They know what they voted for and what we mean by "mayor of London" and "London assembly"; they know what "London" means. They are not concerned with labels, but with whether the Greater London authority will improve London's transport, enhance the capital's prosperity and make London a safer, healthier place in which to work and live.
      The people of London are also concerned about whether the GLA will have the powers to achieve those objectives. I do not believe that any useful purpose—
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but her arguments are going a little wide of the amendment, which is simply about the title of mayor. Her arguments seem to be more relevant to our previous debate.
      Ms Jackson: I am grateful for your advice, Sir Alan.
      Central to my argument is the belief that no purpose would be served by—indeed, there is no justification for—changing the titles of either the mayor of London or the London assembly. In the circumstances, I ask the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Tom Brake: I am afraid that I am not entirely happy with the Minister's response and therefore stress again the importance of amendments Nos. 16 and 17. As well as clarifying the difference between mayor and lord mayor, the amendments would ensure that there is no doubt that the mayor and the assembly will represent not only the interests of inner-city areas, but suburban London boroughs and suburban London constituencies such as mine.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) may not want his constituency to be part of a Greater London construct; I want my constituency to be part of that, and so do my constituents. A few weeks ago, I conducted a survey of rail commuters in the constituency. My constituents commute in their thousands up to Victoria or London Bridge stations and they want the mayor and the assembly to take as much account of their transport and other needs as the needs of residents in inner-city areas such as Southwark or Islington.
      Making it crystal clear that the mayor is the mayor of Greater London and the London assembly is the Greater London assembly would reassure my constituents that their interests will not be forgotten and that their concerns—about deteriorating train services, for example—will not be sidelined by other, equally pressing, inner-city problems. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider the amendments a little more favourably.
      Ms Jackson: I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the Greater London authority will comprise the mayor and the

      733
      London assembly. I do not believe that the people of London are incapable of understanding what is meant by "mayor of London" or "the assembly". His fear that the concerns of his constituents, or those of the constituents of any hon. Member representing a London constituency, will be sidelined has been answered by our proposals in respect of the constituencies. The constituencies will have directly elected representatives and the parties' percentage of the vote will be reflected in the 11 members who will be elected to the assembly by the list system.
      I return the point that I made earlier, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) did not afford it the weight that it carries: the people of London are not fools. They have been actively campaigning for the type of government which we made it abundantly clear we would give them. Hopefully, we are in the process of delivering that. They are not confused about what is meant by the "mayor of London" or the "assembly". I trust that, having heard me repeat it, the hon. Gentleman will agree with my previous request to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the amendment be withdrawn.
      5 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: It was worth raising this issue, and 1 heard what the Minister said in both her brief answers. There is no confusion at the moment because those people do not yet exist. They will exist only from May next year. From that date, a lord mayor may be visiting one country while the mayor of London visits another.
      I understand that the Government have drafted the Bill and do not want to concede this point, and I was not expecting an immediate concession. I am generous and understand how these things work, so I shall allow the Government time to reflect on this matter.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a long time.
      Mr. Hughes: That was a provocative remark. The Labour party is often slow to reach the right decision. I have learnt that over many years. I have waited a long time for realisation about the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and constitutional reform. We know that with Labour we wait a long time. People in the health service are waiting a long time, too. I shall not stray too far from the subject, Sir Alan, but the Minister tempted me to do so.
      I hope that the Government will reflect on this matter in the time that it takes us to complete the Committee stage. We may return to it later, but in the interim I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in clause 2, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
      '(aa) the Deputy Mayor'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 61, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, after 'Mayor', insert ', the Deputy Mayor'.
      No. 62, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, after 'Mayor', insert ', the Deputy Mayor'.
      734
      No. 63, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, after 'Mayor', insert 'and Deputy Mayor'.
      No. 64, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, after 'Mayor', insert `, the Deputy Mayor'.
      Mr. Ottaway: It is important that the role of deputy mayor be more clearly defined and that it be independent of the assembly. The deputy mayor should not be a member of the assembly and a running mate of the mayor, elected on the same ticket. Clause 41 makes it clear that the deputy mayor has a significant role to play in the life of the authority, and that is repeated throughout the Bill. The Bill provides that he or she will be appointed by the mayor from the ranks of the assembly. That muddies the waters.
      One of the more interesting experiments being conducted under the Bill is that, for the first time in the United Kingdom, the powers of the Executive are separated from those of the legislature. That is a huge change in our constitution and a principle that deserves the closest possible scrutiny. The separation of powers must be a true separation and be properly defined.

      Elections will take place and party candidates for the assembly will campaign on their own manifesto, which may differ in many respects from that of the mayor. The mayor will have his mandate and policies, and the power to implement them. The assembly's role is to scrutinise the exercise of that power and, to the limited extent permitted under the Bill, to support the mayor or exercise a check on matters with which it disagrees. Those checks and balances are an essential ingredient of the separation of powers.
      We, and constitutionists throughout the country, will watch closely to see how the division of power works. We shall want to see whether such a model may be more widely introduced. It is extremely important for that reason alone. However, the provisions of clause 41—that the deputy mayor will be chosen from the ranks of the assembly—muddy the water and put the deputy mayor in a position of fundamental conflict. On the one hand, he will be obliged to scrutinise the mayor's activities and, on the other, he will be expected to be loyal to the mayor in the performance of his executive powers. He cannot be expected to perform an executive function while turning around and assessing or commenting on his own performance.
      I anticipate that the Minister will say that the position of deputy mayor will be no different from his position as a Minister in the House of Commons. However, there is all the difference in the world. The Minister's boss is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister appoints him, and he reports to the Prime Minister through his Secretary of State. The Minister was elected on the same manifesto as the Prime Minister. His mandate is no lesser or greater than the Prime Minister's, and the Prime Minister derives his authority not only from his party, but from the House. Under the strict constitutional definition of the post of Prime Minister, he is the man who can command a majority in the House of Commons.
      The mayor of London will have his own mandate and his own executive powers, and he will derive no authority from the assembly. The very point of the assembly is to keep the mayor in check and to scrutinise the mayor, so the potential for conflict is clear. It is not possible to straddle the gap between the two. The power to appoint

      735
      the deputy mayor from the assembly gives the mayor unacceptable patronage. Every member of the ruling coalition will know that the deputy mayor can be sacked at the mayor's whim, and any one of them could take his place. In an assembly in which only 13 votes make up a majority, it would be pretty easy to keep those members in line, because they would live in hope of becoming deputy mayor.
      Our second reason for opposing the Government's proposals is that, as the deputy mayor will perform many of the mayor's functions, the public should know at the time of the election who the deputy mayor will be. We believe that he should run on a joint ticket with the candidate for mayor, so that it would be clear to all voters who he is, what his background is and what skills he would bring to the job. That would make the process clear, transparent and accountable.
      That leads me to my third point. Our amendments would enable a business man to bring his commercial skills to the authority. Much has been made of the possibility of a business man running for the post of mayor. I have spoken to a number of business men about that in the past six months, but most of them shy away from the suggestion. The reason is clear. Believe it or not, to be a politician requires certain skills. They are not normal skills associated with normal behaviour, and some people find them easier than others. Such people are rarely business men. Many politicians have no business skills. We propose a formula that would allow an experienced politician to run as mayor with a business man as his deputy. There may be other combinations, but that would be a sensible package for any party to put forward. They would complement each other in a way that would benefit the authority and London as a whole.
      There are two lesser reasons for the separation of roles, which are none the less relevant. First, members of the assembly will be busy enough without one of them having to take on the extra duties of deputy mayor. Pressures on the mayor and his deputy will be substantial. The deputy mayor will have little time to perform his role as an assembly man as well. Secondly, under our proposals, in the event of the mayor's incapacity, the deputy mayor would become the mayor, having already been endorsed by the public. To us, that is a particularly important point.
      When the new authority is established, the pressure on the mayor and the mayor's office will be enormous. The Government are falling into the trap of making Londoners believe that the mayor will be the be-all and end-all of their problems. The pressure on him will be substantial, and the role of deputy mayor will be equally important. He will be a buffer, a voice, a wielder of executive power, and he should be independent of those whose job it is to scrutinise his role.
      Those who have thought about how the mayor will operate will realise that there is merit in the amendments. I urge the Government to give them serious consideration.
      Mr. Ken Livingstone: The previous speech—although it came from a representative of all the forces of evil and darkness in our society—had a lot of merit. It was consistent and coherent. The Government are importing to Britain an American style of government, with the separation of the legislature and the Executive.
      736
      In America, the President and Vice-President run as a team, and there are real advantages for my party in listening to that argument.
      Given the nature of the way in which this place operates, we will not be told tonight that the amendment can be accepted. However, as the Bill is debated here and in another place over the next few months, there is every possibility that my party could be persuaded to see the strong advantages in the Conservative proposals.
      In the first place, it would be wholly wrong for someone to run as mayor without saying whom they intend to appoint as deputy. Suppose I were to run as a new Labour candidate, opposed to tax-and-spend and in favour of bombing Iraq—all the normal package. If, having been elected mayor—if that were possible on such a slate—I appointed as my deputy some horrendous old Labour candidate, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), people would feel cheated. At the very least, every party should make clear who the deputy will be.
      The deputy's position will be one of power and influence. The Bill implies clearly that the deputy mayor will chair the police authority—although that is not 100 per cent. certain—and that is a major and important public role. No one should have to cast a vote without being absolutely clear whom the mayor intends to appoint as deputy. It would be bizarre if an American President were elected and announced afterwards that he was appointing someone about whom the public were completely in the dark.
      Mr. Edward Davey: If memory serves me correctly, the hon. Gentleman became leader of the Greater London council without the people of London knowing that he would become the leader.
      Mr. Livingstone: If the hon. Gentleman had been around in London at the time, he would know that the Evening Standard made clear what was to happen virtually every day throughout the election campaign. On the day before the election, an entire front page editorial said that, if you vote Labour, you will get Ken Livingstone. Everyone then expressed surprise when that wonderful event came to pass. As far as I recall, the only Londoner who was surprised was Andrew McIntosh.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: The noble Lord.
      Mr. Livingstone: Indeed.
      Under the present proposal, we could have a bizarre situation. If the mayor were to die in office, or resign, the deputy mayor would take over and, within six months, an election would be held to fill the post permanently. However, if that death occurred 18 months before the general election, a fairly lengthy selection and election process would be followed almost immediately by the normal four-yearly election. Therefore, asking Londoners to vote for a ticket—a mayor and a deputy—knowing that, if the mayor is incapacitated, they will get the deputy, seems to be eminently more sensible.
      When the Conservative party announced the proposal, I heard on the radio my party's initial reaction, which was to say that the proposal could not work because the deputy might get more votes than the mayor. Clearly, if two different votes were cast, that could be possible—but that

      737
      is not a sensible approach. There should be one vote and, on the ballot paper, there should be the name of the mayor and the mayor's chosen deputy.
      During the American presidential election of 1800, the vice-presidential candidate, Aaron Burr, received the same number of electoral college votes as Thomas Jefferson, and the issue had to be resolved in the House of Representatives. However, we can learn from that experience, and run—as the Americans have done ever since 1800—a joint slate of two names.
      As the Bill is considered, we must look at the role of the deputy mayor. That matter will come up in later amendments, but there could be a problem if the mayor nominated the deputy mayor to be a member of the police authority with the understanding that he was to become chair. Unless the mayor can make that appointment, the members of the police authority, not elected by Londoners but appointed by the Home Secretary, could conspire to prevent it from happening. We must ensure that a powerful deputy mayor has a powerful role. There should be a clear understanding, even if it is not put into the Bill, that the deputy mayor should be the chairman of the police committee.
      5.15 pm
      There would be a danger of members of the assembly keeping their nose clean with the mayor if there was the slightest possibility of their being chosen as deputy. Those of us with long experience in local government will know of many instances in which people have voted loyally for the party line, year after year, never dissenting, and have been rewarded with a year as mayor, with the allowance, drinks cupboard, nice meals and visits that go with the post. That certainly happened in Lambeth in the late 1960s when I was a discordant voice in the Labour party ranks.
      The deputy mayor should be directly elected, not appointed from among assembly members. I am in agreement with almost all that has been said in support of the amendment, and I hope that my party will not reject it out of hand. Nothing undermines respect for politicians more than a knee-jerk rejection against an idea simply because it has come from our opponents.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: We, too, are grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) for initiating this debate. Like the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), I will not offer a knee-jerk reaction.
      Let me remind the Committee of the history of the proposals so far.
      Mr. Pound: Oh, no.
      Mr. Hughes: The history will be brief but instructive.
      We started with no proposal for a deputy mayor. We, among others, sought to persuade the Government that it was important to have a deputy mayor, not least because the mayor could disappear, through death or other peradventure. We proposed, and still propose, that, because we cannot get what we most want—to have the mayor, as the leader of London politics, elected from the assembly, just as, in a slight variation because of the involvement of the monarch, Parliament allows the Prime Minister to be appointed—the deputy mayor should be chosen from among the assembly.
      738
      After some distillation in the Government machine, a counter-proposal was made to have a deputy mayor appointed by the mayor. That is progress, because we get a deputy, but it has the defect illustrated by the hon. Member for Brent, East: it is a patronage job. On the day after the election, the mayor looks round and decides, possibly without any prior notice to anybody, who will be the deputy. There is no suggestion that the mayor and deputy might reflect the balance of political view of the assembly, no guarantee that a female mayor would have a male deputy, to reflect London's gender balance, and no obligation to reflect London's ethnic mix.
      The mayor might choose a best buddy as deputy. Some long-past political favour might be paid off. That is bad news, for the reason given by the hon. Members for Brent, East and for Croydon, South: the deputy is one step away from being the mayor. Who knows how long the mayor might survive, either politically or personally? The mayor might drop dead the day after election.
      For however long or short a period, the deputy will have to carry out the functions of mayor, as well as having the important job of deputy while the mayor is still in post. He or she will deputise on a regular basis, and, with a small authority of only 25 members, there will be a lot of work for the mayor's office. It will be an important job, and we should think about how to fill it.
      The Liberal Democrats cannot, without further development of the idea, support the proposal that a deputy should simply be elected on a single slate without any qualification. However, I accept that that proposal is a perfectly logical alternative, and the case has been put that a political mayor might have a non-political deputy. The reverse could arguably occur: in a press article some months ago, the Prime Minister said that he would like a business person to be mayor, and, if someone is plucked from the ranks of Labour supporters to fill the candidacy—just as Labour has plucked business people for other jobs—we could have a politician as deputy mayor.
      There are flaws in the Conservative argument. To have two people elected on the same slate means a bit of a closed list. When the press spin on the Tory suggestion of electing a deputy at the same time as the mayor was first published, there was a hint that the deputy might not come from the same party as the mayor. There could be a mixed slate of—to pull an example from thin air—Lord Archer as the Tory mayoral candidate and the hon. Member for Brent, East as the candidate for deputy mayor. I do not think that any such deal has been struck, but who knows what might happen later in the campaign. We are not against that.
      Mr. Livingstone: I am.
      Mr. Hughes: I mean the idea, not the package: I should not want to tie the hon. Member for Brent, East to the idea that that was the dream team for any of us.
      The idea of having a mayor and a deputy from different parties, or even of having one or other from no party at all, is rather appealing, and it is one of the prospects opened up by the new authority. It would be better, however, to advance as we propose, even if the Government do not go as far as the hon. Member for Croydon, South has proposed. On the day after the elections, it would be far better for the assembly to choose

      739
      who would provide an appropriate balance to the mayor than to have the choice preordained either by a deal struck before the election or by a secret deal revealed by the mayor after the election with a fanfare of trumpets.
      If, for the sake of argument, Labour, which got the largest share of the vote at the last general election, wins the first mayoral election, and if the deputy is chosen from the assembly, which will probably be balanced with no party having an overall majority, it may be in the interests of the government of the whole of London not to have a deputy mayor who is Labour. A Conservative, Liberal Democrat, independent or even Green deputy mayor could help us to make London government look as if it represents all the people. One way in which to do that is not to offer London a government for five years in which the mayor, deputy and everything else will be Labour, but to offer something more pluralist. London is not a one-party state; indeed, no party has a majority since, as I got the Minister to concede some months ago, Labour did not even quite win a majority at the last elections in London. In the words of one of our previous leaders, "We're all minorities now," although some are larger than others.
      The Government have been very good about wanting a pluralist, representative assembly for London. It should be representative of gender, age, background and ethnicity. It should feel like and look like a government for London, unlike Westminster, which does not feel like an assembly representative of Britain: although it is getting better, we are not there yet.
      In another guise, Sir Alan, you are one of three Deputy Speakers. There is an argument for having more than one deputy mayor, and I ask colleagues to consider that. If we have only one deputy mayor, the job will be subject to the sort of political scurrying that the hon. Member for Brent, East described. The deputy mayor will be one step away from being the mayor. Given that we cannot have what the Liberal Democrats would prefer, which is the mayor being chosen from among the assembly, having two or three deputies would give a better political spread—one from each of the groupings that we would expect to be in the assembly—and the leadership of London would be more pluralistic.
      Finally, I hope that the Government will reflect on the benefit of responding to the Conservative proposition, which is supported by the hon. Member for Brent, East, and will consider how we can best get such a mixed ticket. The danger of the current system is that there is no opportunity for a running mate. The mayoral candidate might be driven by the politics of the next 12 to 15 months to declare who will be his or her running mate, as deputy, but would have to presume that the electorate would vote in the proposed running mate, and none of us should presume that. The deputy has to come from the assembly and, although there is a list system and one can make various assumptions about the people at the top of the list, one should not assume that X or Y will be in the assembly. We need to consider all the associated issues.
      I join the hon. Member for Brent, East in hoping that the Minister will not reject such a proposition out of hand. Above all, I hope that he will not reiterate the argument, which appears to be based on a misconception about what is proposed, that the deputy mayor might get more votes—I never realised that that happened in America
      740
      in 1800, but I do not remember studying that period in history. My understanding of the proposition was that it would be a package and that we would vote for the two—the two names would appear on the ballot paper together and would therefore have the same number of votes. It is not a question of the deputy getting more than the mayor; it is one package, two people.
      I hope that the Minister will be generous and will at least open up the debate. Above all, the Liberal Democrats hope that, at the end of the further consideration, the Government will move 100 per cent. They have moved 50 per cent. of the way by conceding a deputy mayor, but have stopped at allowing him or her to be appointed by the mayor. If they move 100 per cent., so that the assembly chooses the deputy mayor, those whom the wider electorate of London have elected to represent the city will have a say in its leadership. Therefore, the leadership base will not be as narrow as it would be with only a directly elected mayor and the person whom she or he appoints.
      Mr. Tony McNulty: At the risk of being as pedantic as the Liberal Democrats, let me say that I am confused by the amendments, not least because of the use of the comma. Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62 and 64 all refer to "`, the Deputy Mayor"', whereas, given the introduction of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to amendment No. 63, they should read, "'and Deputy Mayor'".
      The words, "mayor and deputy mayor" would lend themselves to the system described thus far, which would be run according to one ticket with two people on it—the mayor and the deputy mayor. However, the amendments would insert a comma and not an "and". To my tiny mind that suggests that there would be an election for the mayor, for the deputy mayor and so forth. I then run into difficulty because amendments Nos. 62 to 64 do not elaborate on what the election of the deputy mayor would entail.
      We are considering four or five amendments that would insert "', the Deputy Mayor'", but do not suggest how he or she would be elected. That wording would merely add in the notion of a deputy mayor—as though one could suddenly drop out of the sky. Under the amendments, there would be no election for the deputy mayor; while the election of the mayor and candidates is detailed in schedule 2, references to the deputy mayor stop at clause 2. Perhaps the hon. Member for Croydon, South will pick that up.
      5.30 pm
      As the amendment stands, we would have a sort of an unelected deputy mayor paratrooper—not elected on a ticket, not remotely associated with the assembly, the mayor's office or anything else—who falls from the sky. In the worst analysis, Lord Archer could be elected and say, for example,"I'll have Monica Coghlan as my deputy." Who knows? No election is suggested, so anything could happen. That may reflect my technical ignorance in not understanding the amendments but I suspect that I am right.
      More generally, I want to scotch a notion. Here, and upstairs, things are lovely, convivial and consensual, and we all say that points are fair or legitimate. I want to scotch the idea that, given that we started from a point

      741
      way before the general election, the notion of a deputy mayor, whether or elected or not, is new and that the Conservatives in London, perish the thought, have lit upon this wonderful, novel idea. Hon. Members may say, "Let's not be hasty and throw it away immediately, let's be consensual and think about it because no one has thought of it before", but that is rubbish. Since the inception of the notion of a mayor, the question of whether there should be a deputy mayor and whether the post should be elected, appointed by patronage or whatever, has been discussed in our ranks and in everyone else's. The thought that the Conservatives could be novel enough to think of having a deputy mayor is rubbish. Hon. Members may plead with us not to throw out the amendments but that is abject nonsense.
      Not every mayoral—as opposed to presidential—contest, in the United States involves a deputy mayor. Many United States cities have no deputy mayor. In others, one of the council members, in the narrow sense that they have council members, is nominally appointed deputy mayor and carries out mayoral functions as we understand them in London boroughs. It is not strictly an executive position. I strongly urge that we get rid of this proposal here and now without any consensual faffing. If it comes back in any shape or form we should get rid of it then, too.
      As I said on Second Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about gender and ethnicity cannot be fully legislated for. They are, and remain, the responsibility of political parties. Points such as the balance of the ticket—when the mayor is a female, perhaps the deputy mayor should be male—should not be picked up in legislation. I do not dismiss those points, but they are the responsibility of political parties. The linkage between the deputy mayor and the mayor is designed, as I now understand it, precisely to provide the crucial link between the mayor and assembly. The deputy mayor is not only a deputy but a link.
      On having more than one deputy mayor, the Bill deals with the chair and deputy chair of the assembly and how they will fit in with the deputy mayor and mayor. That is also important but it will be discussed later.
      Not least because of the way that the assembly will be elected, I do not accept the idea that was discussed on Second Reading that we will effectively have two hermetically sealed little units: a mayor going off in one direction doing whatever he or she wants and the assembly doing all that it can to stop him or her. We are talking about a brand new architecture of governance for London, and the mayor especially and the assembly had better understand that. If they think that it is all about smoke-filled rooms in Charles square, Walworth road, Millbank and wherever the minority parties live these days, they have another thing coming. Sooner rather than later, the mayor and the assembly will sit down and talk about consensual, practical, productive and realistic politics so that London can go forward. It is not about patronage or about reinventing Mayor Daley in Chicago, or any other horror stories of a mayor—I nearly said Morrison, but I did not mean that—but about a brand-new system for the millennium.
      I would have difficulty—as would the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I believe—if we stayed with the system set out in the Bill, because all the
      742
      mayoral candidates could say, "I will have so-and-so as my deputy mayor". That would be extremely presumptive, whether it was the top Tory, the top Liberal or the top Labour person on the list, or the Labour person in the safest of the 14 directly elected seats. That should not happen and I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. However, the deputy mayor should be put in place as soon as possible after the election for mayor. One would hope that the second time around, or in subsequent elections, if the team of mayor and deputy mayor had been successful on behalf of London, or if there were opposition incumbents, there might well be election tickets, as envisaged by the amendments.
      The amendment is a pale, washed-out blue herring, rather than a red herring—nevertheless, still a herring—and should be totally resisted. If we fully understand the new architecture of the governance of London as set out in the Bill, we see the amendment for what it is: purely and simply, a wrecking amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon, South, whether his constituency is in Kent, Surrey or Greater London.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: At one point in our short debate, I felt descending on me the emotion of an unholy alliance across the Chamber. I can only say to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that I am always grateful for his interventions on this issue, because he brings a historical perspective to it. On Second Reading, he reminded us that it was the wicked but great Lord Salisbury who tried to remove the old London county council after it had been in existence for 10 years.
      I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and later I shall refer to one of the points that he made. I can be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has articulated many of my feelings about why the amendment should be accepted. I believe that there will be a conflict of interest if the deputy mayor, who is to be appointed solely by the mayor, is a member of the assembly.
      My point is a simple one, and it is one that the Government seem to have recognised, because clause 41—I hope that I am not trespassing too far beyond clause 2—states that the mayor cannot appoint a deputy mayor who is the chairman of the assembly. I prefer to say chairman rather than chair, not only because I am old-fashioned and believe that the man embraces the woman, etymologically, but because my surname is Chapman and not Chap. The point is that the mayor cannot appoint the chairman of the assembly as deputy mayor, or rather, that he can, but, if he were to do so, the chairman would have to resign as chairman of the assembly. The remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, East reminded me that it is not only one person from the assembly who cannot be the deputy mayor, but two people, because the deputy chairman of the assembly cannot remain in that position if he is appointed deputy mayor.
      That makes a fairly wide invasion into, even if it does not drive a coach and horses through, the concept that was powerfully argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and the hon. Member for Brent, East. Will the Government consider the matter seriously? On balance, I believe that it is a good idea that the deputy

      743
      mayor should be elected on the ticket for the mayoral election, rather than be appointed by the mayor from the elected members of the assembly.
      Mr. Pound: There are moments in my albeit very short—and not likely to be extremely long—life in this place when, against my every instinct, I feel a scintilla of sympathy for the views expressed by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) occasionally makes a persuasive point. Today, he described a scenario in which the mayor was surrounded by a glittering constellation of deputy mayors, each and every one of whom represented another strand of Londoners. They were gathered almost inevitably in the millennium dome—because that is sure as hell the only place big enough to take them—and somehow they melded together in the interests of Londoners. That is despite the fact that an hour ago we were arguing about just where London is. If I have learned anything, it is that Bromley is clearly not in London-s-which is not a suggestion with which I have a great deal of trouble.
      Unfortunately, listening to the argument that a thousand flowers will bloom and we will somehow link together, I was reminded—as I am sure were many other hon. Members—of the words of Ernest Bevin. He was an extremely wise and distinguished statesperson who once said, "If we had a little less democracy and a little more trust, we would get a lot more done." He was talking about what he described as "our great movement" that used to exist a few years ago.
      We are talking about not some idealised internet scenario of the perfect, most democratic and most agonisingly painful representative voting system that ever existed in the solar system, but a practical system that will meet the needs of Londoners and our capital city. We are talking essentially about having a body that is smaller than the GLC, not about quadrupling its size and having sub-mayors from all over the place. I was a mayor of the London borough of Ealing—it is a period of Ealing civic history that is, oddly enough, seldom referred to in the history of that borough. However, I remember that period with great nostalgia—and not through a haze, it must be said. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) seemed to reduce the deputy mayoral issue to scrabbling for the keys of the drinks cupboard.
      We have three propositions before us that are plainly wrong. They are advanced by the two Opposition parties and, with the greatest respect, by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. The reality is that Londoners have waited far too damn long and we cannot endure more of these pettifogging, pusillanimous discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when there is work to be done. Our streets are choked with traffic and we must come to grips with many problems involving London's housing and environment. We have more important things to do than trying to work out the Southwark, North and Bermondsey model of ultimate democratic representation. It is simply not a valid use of our time.
      I return to a point that I made earlier. Everybody accepts that we are talking about a different form of governance for this city. Nobody wants to recreate the London county council or the GLC. No one—with respect
      744
      to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—is talking about replicating Chicago of the 1950s. We are talking about a 21st century model for a 21st century city. That model will, by definition, be different. Let us judge the proposals tonight not by referring back but by looking forward to a slimline, tighter, more accountable and more controlled authority that will achieve for London. It is nonsense to suggest that having two elections for mayor and deputy mayor will further that objective. I suggest that that idea owes more to the Conservative party's need to accommodate internal strands of interest than to any attempt to reach a democratic conclusion.
      Mr. Forth: For the avoidance of doubt—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to imply this—I hope that he is not suggesting that we should abandon the entire Committee proceedings and legislative process because it is absurd to examine the details of the Bill and discuss possible changes to it. If he is, he appears to be falling into step with his leadership which has exactly that wish and which wants to do away with the legislative process in the House of Commons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reassure us in this early stage in the Committee's proceedings that he will allow us occasionally to discuss details of the Bill—and maybe even seek to amend it.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Pound: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I assure you that that was not my intention, Sir Alan. We have before us a Bill of 277 clauses which deals with some of the most important aspects that will affect our lives as Londoners and those of our descendants. I want to discuss environmental issues such as biodiversity, transportation and housing—
      The Chairman: Order. We have before us an amendment about the deputy mayor and nothing else.
      Mr. Pound: That is the point that I was making, Sir Alan. I am sorry, I was making it in my clumsy, naive way. There are issues that must be debated. My point is that since about half-past 3 we have spent the time and much energy discussing an issue that is not germane to the heart of the Bill for the reasons that I started to list, but I ran out of steam halfway through and you rightly called me to order, Sir Alan.
      I have a great deal of sympathy for people who want to promulgate different views. That is their democratic right and their duty. However, on this issue, we are in grave danger of going down a blind alley in search of a mythical perfection. Such perfection possibly existed only in ancient Athens, and even then in fairly unpropitious social circumstances that we may not want to replicate. We are discussing practicalities, and for us to go into such detail about the deputy mayor seems an inordinate waste of time.
      I support the Government's position, not as a toadying Back Bencher, but as someone who has been a councillor in London for 16 years, who has been involved in London politics for the best part of his working life and who seeks a system that works, perhaps not the ideal system, but one that is practical and manageable and which will deliver for this capital city.
      Mrs. Lait: I am pleased to be able to support the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon,

      745
      South (Mr. Ottaway) for an elected deputy mayor. I hope that I do not blight the hopes of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) by coming from the side of darkness and saying that I thought he spoke a great deal of sense in his support for the amendment. We have also heard a couple of impassioned contributions about the current system.
      Mr. McNulty: You began by referring—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now been here long enough to know the correct forms of address.
      Mr. McNulty: I apologise, Sir Alan, not least because you pulled me up on that yesterday.
      The hon. Lady began by referring to an elected deputy mayor. Given the points that I made at the beginning of my speech, will she tell me where in the amendment there is a reference to the election of a deputy mayor and the details of that process, because I could not find such a reference?
      Mrs. Lait: With the greatest respect, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman wasted the Committee's time by arguing about commas when we are discussing the principle of a directly elected deputy mayor. That measure would be a good way to reinforce the principle that Ministers are trying to support—the separation of the executive from the legislature. That is the sense in which I strongly support our amendment.
      I am rather sad that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) let his wings of imagination take flight—the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) endorsed his point—and asked us to envisage hundreds of sub-mayors in the dome. We seek only one directly elected mayor.
      I know that we are short of time, so without reiterating any of the points that have been made, I want to make a practical point about the drawback of having a deputy mayor chosen from among the assembly members. The deputy mayor might be chosen from among those members who will be directly elected by the boroughs. One hopes that they will have constituency work of the type that most councillors have to do. They will each be representing more than 300,000 people, so I suspect that they will have a reasonably sized postbag. It will take them time to deal with that correspondence, along with the work that the assembly will be doing.
      The other option is to have a deputy mayor chosen from the list. That takes us back to the problem, which I shall not outline at great length—I should be pulled up if I did so—of the two types of elected members and their various powers and responsibilities and to the role of proportional representation in delivering people who are genuinely representative.
      One assumes that the London members will not have the same postbags as the others and so will have more time. It is therefore almost a foregone conclusion that the deputy mayor will be chosen from among the London members. Of course, the London members are, against the will of the Opposition, to be chosen by the parties. That means that the deputy mayor will have a great conflict of interest if the assembly is, for some reason, in dispute with the mayor or if the assembly and/or the mayor is in
      746
      dispute with the Government. Whoever is elected as a Labour London member will certainly be chosen by the party and will hence be approved by the Government. I would not wish to have the job of that deputy mayor.
      The suggestion that there should be a directly elected deputy mayor gets around all of the problems inherent in having a deputy mayor who is chosen. I do not wish to stand for the assembly, but I would never take on the job of deputy mayor as set out in the Bill.
      Mr. Keith Darvill: We shall of course debate the role of the deputy mayor when clause 41 is considered, but I oppose the amendment because it would affect the balance between the mayor and the assembly. The mayor will have a very powerful role, as set out in the Bill, and a ticket involving a mayor and a deputy would strengthen his powers dramatically. The assembly's role in checking those powers would inevitably be diminished by the amendment. It is important that there is a balance in the elections of the deputy mayor and of the assembly. Our job is to beef up the role of assembly members so that there is not too much power in the hands of the mayor. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Edward Davey: While listening to the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), I began to wonder whether they realised why they had been returned to this place. Parliament is meant to be about debate and discussing ideas. The hon. Member for Harrow, East suggested that we should not keep an open mind or think again during our proceedings. That seems to be wholly against the idea of parliamentary democracy. We and the Government should have an open mind. The hon. Gentlemen suggested that that meant being overly consensual. However, the Government state in the Green Paper that they want consensual government for London, so he is a little off message.

      The hon. Member for Ealing, North seems to want government by diktat. He does not want us to debate how democracy in London should work. The very essence of the Bill is the setting up of government for London, and the structure of that government is clearly important. I am surprised and rather shocked by the hon. Gentleman.
      Two arguments have been put forward by the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) as to why there should be a deputy mayor running on a ticket with the mayor. The hon. Member for Croydon, South suggested that it would enable the position to be given to a business person. However, it does not necessarily follow that a business person would take up the post.
      The notion that a business person who stands for elected office is different and not involved in politics has been debated in the London press and in the House, but it is devoid of logic. One reason that business people are not coming forward is that they do not want to get involved in politics. The idea that someone standing for office can be neutral and above politics is arrant nonsense. If a business man wants to become a politician, he should say so openly, not try to hide behind a neutral facade and pretend that he has nothing to do with the dirty business of politics. We should be proud of our profession, not try to sell it down the river by saying that we should have a business person who knows how to run things because we do not. Saying that shows a lack of confidence in our profession.

      747
      The other argument, deployed by the hon. Member for Brent, East, was the heartbeat argument. The argument, which we hear in relation to the constitution of the United States of America, is that the post of Vice-President is important and that the Vice-President should run on a ticket with the President—if the President dies, there needs to be an immediate exchange of power into the hands of another leader of the Executive.
      I know that the Greater London authority is an important authority. We support it and believe that it will bring democracy to London, but I am afraid that a parallel with the role of the Vice-President of the United States does not apply. The President of the United States is rather more important than the future mayor of London, not least because he has his finger on the button. In the United States, the immediate transition of power is more necessary, and it makes more sense to have a double ticket in those circumstances.
      As the hon. Member for Harrow, East said in one of his more relevant remarks, in other American cities which have a mayor, it is rare for there to be double-ticket elections.
      Mr. Randall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for the Liberal Democrats, one of the benefits of a joint ticket is that it would enable them—as they like to do all over the country—to have two candidates expressing different views?
      Mr. Davey: I am usually a fond admirer of the hon. Gentleman's contributions, but that was not worthy of him.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am almost tempted to pick up on the intervention of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), but I dare not do so. I want to pick up on the American example before my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) leaves the subject. The other obvious difference is that in the United States if the Vice-President takes over, he remains in office for the remainder of the four-year presidential term. Here, if the mayor were to die or resign, there would, rightly, be a by-election, unless it were at the end of a term. It is not a true parallel, in that sense, either.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He makes the point as succinctly and perceptively as usual.
      There are comparisons to be made with mayoral systems outside the United States. The Liberal Democrats look not only to Europe and America, but to Japan. There, the deputy mayor is effectively appointed by the mayor, but has to be approved by the council, which is a half-way house between our position and that of the Government as set out in the Bill. In Germany, a burgermeister does not appoint his deputy. The local council has to elect the deputy, who often comes from the opposition party, in an attempt to achieve the consensual politics that the Government say that they want, but which the hon. Member for Harrow, East clearly does not.
      The business man and heartbeat arguments for a deputy mayor do not stand up. Unlike the hon. Member for Harrow, East, I like to keep an open mind. Let us have a
      748
      more detailed debate on the deputy mayor when we consider clause 41. If the hon. Member for Croydon, South can deploy some more arguments, I shall be happy to listen to them but, for the moment, I am unconvinced.
      6 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: Curiously, I shall start by agreeing with the opening proposition of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). He rightly highlighted the fact that we were creating a new structure of government, which for the first time introduces to this country the concept of the separation of powers. He rightly stressed that we should carefully consider its implications.
      We agree whole-heartedly. That innovation is important. We believe that it will be usefully extended in the local government sphere, where we are exploring new models which will achieve a separation between the executive and scrutiny functions. We want to ensure that, in our proposals for London, the new arrangement, with the separation of powers, ensures effective scrutiny and effective working.
      We have considered models of mayoral government from countries worldwide, and I hope that we have learnt where problems may arise. In particular, we saw potential difficulties where models allowed deadlock, because mayor and assembly often found themselves in conflict, with no good conflict resolution procedures. Often, the government of a city could be brought to a halt—or in some cases there could be no budget—because there was no effective mechanism for overcoming such deadlock.
      Equally, we wanted to avoid a position that can exist if one too rigidly applies the American system, based on the separation of powers, where the only role of the assembly—or council, as it is usually called in America—is to criticise and scrutinise: a remorselessly negative role, with no effective positive role. That can often produce a frame of mind in which the mayor and the council or assembly never work together constructively, because they see themselves as implacably opposed to one another. We do not believe that to be a good model, and we have sought to develop proposals that will ensure that there are real links between mayor and assembly. In the Government's proposal, the deputy mayor is a key figure in establishing that link.
      The Conservative amendments are logical only if we accept other elements of the Conservative party's proposals—notably its proposal that the assembly should be not directly elected, but appointed by the boroughs. I readily agree that it would be nonsense to select a deputy mayor from an appointed chamber of that kind, but, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South knows, we are not minded to accept his party's proposal for an appointed assembly, and we do not intend to accept the proposal that a deputy mayor be elected on the same slate as the mayor. That, as far as we can understand it, is the Conservatives' intention.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said, the amendments do not make it clear whether the deputy mayor would be elected on a joint ticket, or whether the electorate could in any way express a view about the merits of the deputy mayor as such. If the deputy mayor stands on a joint ticket and the electorate are presented with the proposition that they may choose, let us say, Archer and Norris, those who want one but not the other do not have a good choice. They may

      749
      be happy to elect one, but they may be appalled at the idea of the other. Far be it from me to suggest which might arouse enthusiasm or hostility; the point is that the electorate would have no say.
      Last year, in a different context, Opposition Members criticised us for not posing more than one question in a referendum, and I shall defend, as I did then, our decision to do so. The context was different, because then we were setting a proposition for a structure of governance. In this case, the Opposition are proposing that two people should be elected, but apparently, if I get it right, the electorate will not be able to say, "We should like one, but not the other." That is a monstrous travesty of democracy.
      It is essential that the deputy mayor is a member of the assembly, to provide a bridge between the two parts of the authority, and to ensure that they develop a shared sense of purpose, and work together in the interests of London as a whole. That is the structure that we have devised, because we are seeking to develop a system that will encourage constructive working relations and a more consensual approach, and avoid unnecessary conflict. That is why the mayor and assembly members have clearly defined and different roles, and why it is essential that they are elected to fulfil those roles instead of simply being appointed.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister will address the issue that came up in two different ways in the debate. Why should not the deputy, as we have long proposed, be elected by the assembly or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) suggested, taking the Japanese model—be proposed by the mayor, but agreed by the assembly, as appointments to high office are agreed by Select Committees worldwide? That would be entirely compatible with the proposition that the Minister has just put to the Committee about the need for a bridge between assembly and mayor.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will fully understand that there are many options. We have considered the options. Mayoral systems in different parts of the world have been studied, and I have described how we tried to come up with a system that we felt would work best in London. I accept that other models can work in different cities and might work here, too.
      We happen to have formed a judgment that the right relationship is one in which there is a strong mayor, able to achieve results, and that, to help that process, the mayor should appoint the deputy mayor. Equally, however, we believe that the mayor must be accountable and must be subject to close scrutiny. Therefore we have put great emphasis on the relationships between mayor and assembly, ensuring accountability and close scrutiny.
      I do not argue that the model that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has proposed is intrinsically wrong; I just happen to believe that the model that we have proposed is right, and is compatible with the general architecture—to employ the term used by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—of the system of government that we have put in place.
      Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept, however, that if his proposition is carried, it would be unfair and illogical—for reasons well put from the Labour Back
      750
      Benches—for any mayoral candidate to announce before election day who would be their deputy? That would presume on the electorate's right to choose the assembly members and, therefore, the identity of the deputy would be unknown until the day after the election or later. The deputy could then be chosen for no reason other than a personal favour and preference by the person who was mayor. That is the most riddled with potential corruption of all the bits of the structure that the Minister is proposing to the Committee.
      Mr. Raynsford: In a moment, I shall discuss the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in his earlier speech about the possibility of problems of patronage. It is a serious issue, which we shall address. However, I point out, in relation to that latest intervention, that we do wish to leave a good measure of latitude to the mayor to appoint a person whom he or she feels is the appropriate person to fulfil that function.
      One of the defined functions of the deputy mayor will be that of being a member of the Metropolitan police authority. Obviously, the mayor will have to think carefully about the qualifications of the person who will fulfil that very important link, not only in relation to the assembly, but in relation to the Metropolitan police authority. I consider it unlikely, unless the mayoral candidate is very confident indeed about the outcome of the election, that he or she would want to pre-empt the choice of deputy mayor by making an absolute declaration before an election.
      Incidentally, I hope that we can, in these debates, acknowledge that a woman may be elected mayor. The assumption by some hon. Members that the mayor is bound to be a man is, to my mind, offensive. I am not referring to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is entirely scrupulous and proper on these matters.
      A mayoral candidate may wish to say who might possibly be the deputy, and that might provide a spur and give the electorate an incentive to return a candidate in one area; I suspect that such factors may well come into discussion. However, we are leaving that very much to the mayor.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, who a year ago, criticised our proposals, describing them as an inappropriate American import into this country, tonight took a very different viewpoint. He advocated that we should support the model proposed by the amendment, which resembles the American presidential—but not the American mayoral—model. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton argued well and effectively that the American President and Vice-President perform functions very different from those of American mayors. It is inappropriate to apply a presidential model to a mayoral system.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised the issue of patronage. He expressed concern that the mayor would be inclined to appoint people for inappropriate reasons. I do not believe that that will happen. The mayor will know that a good working relationship with the assembly will be crucial to the success of his or her administration. A deputy mayor who is—and is seen as—a figure of substance in the assembly, and who has influence and authority in it, will be essential to the good governance of London and to the success of the mayoralty. Inevitably, that will be a very important consideration in the mind of any mayor.

      751
      Our proposal allows scope for balance. Again, we would not want to pre-empt the mayor's decision, although, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and others have rightly said, we are looking for a framework of government that will be more inclusive, allowing more opportunities for the representation of groups that have not always been well represented in democratic institutions. Questions of balance will inevitably come into the equation when the mayor is making a decision. The important point is that the mayor must make that choice because he or she will have to work with the assembly, and the deputy mayor will provide a crucial link.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East rightly focused on the lack of clarity in the Opposition's position on how the deputy would be elected, and the contradiction obviously inherent in a joint slate, on which the electorate would not have the choice to express a preference for one of two candidates. The concept that we cannot have one without the other is somewhat curious. My hon. Friend also rightly emphasised how the Government's proposals involve putting into place a new architecture for the governance of London, in which the mayor and the assembly will work together and not be implacably opposed to each other.
      Interesting contributions to the debate have also been made by the hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), and for Kingston and Surbiton, to which I have already referred, and by my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who spoke with his usual humour, and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill).
      The Opposition have argued that, if the deputy mayor were an assembly member, the assembly's scrutiny role would be diminished. That is not so. The assembly will have clearly defined powers to call the mayor, the deputy mayor and their senior staff to account. The mayor will have to answer assembly questions and justify his or her actions with reasons. Other than the deputy mayor, no assembly member will have executive functions. The assembly's scrutiny role will not, therefore, be compromised.
      It is essential that there is a strong link between the mayor and the assembly in the person of the deputy mayor, who is able both to articulate mayoral intentions to the assembly and transmit assembly opinions to the mayor. The assembly will be heard at the heart of the mayor's administration, and assembly concerns will be high profile.
      The Opposition's position is extraordinary. We must not forget that, 20 months ago, they did not want a mayor at all; they were totally opposed to the idea. Now, they want not one but two—although they do not want an elected assembly, which makes a travesty of scrutiny. How can a non-elected body scrutinise an elected mayor and an elected deputy mayor? The elected mayor and deputy would be able to turn to the unelected assembly and say, "We, alone, have a mandate from the people of London. How dare you challenge our mandate?" That would create an imbalance, as a result of which scrutiny would not work successfully. It is essential that both the mayor and the assembly have a mandate because they are elected, and can therefore fulfil their role as elected representatives.
      752
      Constraints on the mayor are obviously considerable under our proposals. We want arrangements for proper scrutiny which will allow the mayor's actions to be constantly under review. That depends on an assembly that is able to fulfil such a function confidently.
      Frankly, the Opposition's case is shaky—not least in the suggestion that it will allow good business people to participate in running the Greater London authority, when otherwise they would be discouraged from doing so. Why should a business person be more likely to stand if he or she had to run for office as deputy mayor rather than mayor—or, indeed, as a member of the assembly? That is a laughable proposition. Of course we would like good business people to come forward, but there is no basis on which they should be constrained to fulfil only the role of deputy mayor.
      We have had an interesting debate, although it has not taken forward to any constructive degree the Opposition's view on how the new body in London will operate. We believe very passionately in a structure of government that will allow both accountability and effectiveness. Having an elected deputy mayor, elected on the same ticket as the mayor, will not achieve that purpose. It will, in many ways, compromise it and include serious disadvantages. I urge the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw his amendment. If he does not, I urge my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to vote against it.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Ottaway: At the heart of the amendment is the conflict of interest between the deputy mayor's capacity as an assembly man and his role as the voice of the mayor. The Minister has not addressed the issue properly or given a constructive and sensible response to the proposals. Under the circumstances, we therefore wish to divide the Committee.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 371.

      Division No. 37]

      [6.16 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Evans, Nigel

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Faber, David

      Bercow, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Boswell, Tim

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Garnier, Edward

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gibb, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Gill, Christopher

      Cash, William

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gray, James

      Chope, Christopher

      Green, Damian

      Clappison, James

      Greenway, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Collins, Tim

      Hammond, Philip

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cran, James

      Hayes, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Horam, John

      753

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Randall, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Key, Robert

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Spring, Richard

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lidington, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Luff, Peter

      Syms, Robert

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Townend, John

      Madel, Sir David

      Trend, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Maples, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Walter, Robert

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wardle, Charles

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Moss, Malcolm

      Whittingdale, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Norman, Archie

      Willetts, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paice, James

      Yeo, Tim

      Paterson, Owen

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Pickles, Eric

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      Prior, David

      Mr. Oliver Heald.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brake, Tom

      Ainger, Nick

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Allan, Richard

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Allen, Graham

      Browne, Desmond

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Burden, Richard

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Burgon, Colin

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Burnett, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Burstow, Paul

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Battle, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caplin, Ivor

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Casale, Roger

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caton, Martin

      Beggs, Roy

      Cawsey, Ian

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Chidgey, David

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clapham, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clelland, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clwyd, Ann

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coaker, Vernon

      Boateng, Paul

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Borrow, David

      754

      Coleman, Iain

      Gunnell, John

      Colman, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      Connarty, Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hancock, Mike

      Corbett, Robin

      Hanson, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Harvey, Nick

      Cotter, Brian

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cousins, Jim

      Healey, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cummings, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Heppell, John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hill, Keith

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hinchliffe, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hoey, Kate

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Home Robertson, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hope, Phil

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Denham, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Dismore, Andrew

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Doran, Frank

      Hurst, Alan

      Dowd, Jim

      Hutton, John

      Drew, David

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Illsley, Eric

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Edwards, Huw

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Efford, Clive

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Flint, Caroline

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Follett, Barbara

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Keetch, Paul

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foulkes, George

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fyfe, Maria

      Kidney, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Galloway, George

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Gapes, Mike

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Laxton, Bob

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lepper, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Levitt, Tom

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Linton, Martin

      Grogan, John

      Livingstone, Ken

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      755

      Lock, David

      Rooney, Terry

      McAllion, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCabe, Steve

      Roy, Frank

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ruane, Chris

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McDonnell, John

      Salter, Martin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sanders, Adrian

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McNulty, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mallaber, Judy

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Singh, Marsha

      Marek, Dr John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Meale, Alan

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Snape, Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Spellar, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mitchell, Austin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stevenson, George

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morley, Elliot

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mountford, Kali

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mudie, George

      Stringer, Graham

      Mullin, Chris

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Norris, Dan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Oaten, Mark

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Olner, Bill

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Touhig, Don

      Pendry, Tom

      Trickett, Jon

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pike, Peter L

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Plaskitt, James

      Tyler, Paul

      Pollard, Kerry

      Vaz, Keith

      Pond, Chris

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Pound, Stephen

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Wareing, Robert N

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Watts, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Webb, Steve

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Welsh, Andrew

      Prosser, Gwyn

      White, Brian

      Purchase, Ken

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Radice, Giles

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rammell, Bill

      Willis, Phil

      Rapson, Syd

      Wilson, Brian

      Raynsford, Nick

      Winnick, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Rendel, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooker, Jeff

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      756

      Wise, Audrey

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wood, Mike

      Woolas, Phil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Worthington, Tony

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Wray, James

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. I am sorry to interrupt the House. For some days I have been trying to get a copy of "Urban Renaissance", a document produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is Lord Rogers's interim report and has been paid for by the taxpayer. It contains suggestions for urban renewal, many of which would interest both sides of the House, but neither side can get hold of it because the DETR has failed to provide any copies to the Vote Office. The DETR has held a press conference on the report and announced it to the public, but if one wants a copy, one must send someone to the DETR. Hon. Members cannot get copies.
      Is it not time that the Government accepted that their first duty is to tell the House of their projects and programmes, and that the House should know about them before the press and the public? If we need such documents, we should be able to get them readily from the Vote Office.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that the House will have heard and noted the right hon. Gentleman's point.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 2 to 22 and insert—
      '(2) The Assembly shall consist of 33 members comprising—

      (a) one nominated representative from each London Borough and

      (b) one nominated representative from the Corporation of London.

      (3) The Mayor shall be returned in accordance with the provisions made in or by virtue of this Act for the holding of elections and the filling of a vacancy in the office of Mayor.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 82, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'consist of twenty five' and insert
      ', until the first boundary review under Schedule 1 consist of forty'.
      No. 3, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'twenty five' and insert 'thirty-three'.
      No. 18, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'twenty five' and insert 'forty'.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'members' to end of line 6.
      No. 20, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'fourteen' and insert `twenty three'.
      No. 21, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'eleven' and insert 'seventeen'.
      No. 24, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
      'following a review carried out by the Local Government Commission under the terms of Schedule 1 to this Act.'

      757
      No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 34 to 39.
      No. 72, in schedule 1, page 139, line 43, leave out from 'If' to second 'the' and insert
      'Within 12 months of each ordinary election'.
      No. 12, in page 141, line 25, leave out 'fourteen' and insert 'thirty-three'.
      No. 28, in page 141, line 25, leave out 'fourteen' and insert 'twenty three'.
      No. 13, in page 141, leave out lines 26 to 34 and insert—
      '2. Each London borough shall be an assembly constituency'.
      No. 57, in page 141, line 34, at end insert—
      '6. If the population of any London borough either increases or decreases to such an extent that, in the opinion of the Local Government Commission, the strict interpretation of the rules would produce an unacceptably sized constituency, the Commission may vary the rules as it sees fit.'.
      Mr. Ottaway: The amendment relates to the Opposition's proposal that the assembly of the authority should comprise borough representatives. We believe in a mayor who will speak for Londoners at a national level and for London on the international stage. The Bill shows signs of having tried to achieve that, but we have ended up with a rather lop-sided mayor.
      The mayor has important powers vis-a-vis the boroughs. He can direct them on major planning matters, control their local transport and traffic arrangements, specify their waste disposal, recycling and pollution policies, and he, rather than the boroughs, will nominate the police authority members.
      Far too much has been taken from the boroughs, particularly matters which are too operational in character—for example, taxicard and door-to-door transport, and highways management rather than just traffic management for the road network.
      The Bill makes no provision for liaison or communication between the boroughs and the mayor. That is a glaring omission given that the boroughs will collectively spend approaching £15 billion and deliver all the basic services.
      The Committee should bear in mind that the mayor and the assembly will comprise just 26 people. The delivery of all basic services will be through the London boroughs and the scope for negotiation and discussion with them is preciously thin.
      As the Bill is structured, the assembly's role in all this is limited. As a result, the potential for a breakdown in the relationship between the authority and the London boroughs is substantial. Concerns are growing. To return to the quotes that I gave on Second Reading, the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea said:
      "I think the immediate things that make everybody's hair begin to rise are the road network, transportation and planning, where the potential for conflict is substantial."
      Just to show that Kensington and Chelsea is not alone, the chief executive of Islington said:
      "It's now about to dawn on everyone that the GLA is going to have a massive impact on the way the boroughs operate."
      Mr. Gummer: In my hon. Friend's earlier examples of those areas which will be taken over, he mentioned the recycling of waste. I declare an interest in this, as the chairman of a company which recycles packaging. Is it
      758
      not important to have that close connection which Agenda 21 has with each of the boroughs? What will it mean if a borough decides to take some far-sighted view? For example, Islington might well take a far-sighted view on new ideas for recycling. Would it then be constantly hampered and pressed by a mayor who has little connection with the interests of the Agenda 21 committee and the borough?
      Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, the boroughs know best what is necessary for them. If they do not have the voice and the representation within the authority, they will feel rejected, and the potential for clash and conflict will grow. It is the essence of the amendment that, if the assembly was made up of borough representatives, their recycling and waste disposal men and the Agenda 21 representatives could have their voice heard by the authority and the mayor. My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman said that the assembly would change the way in which boroughs operate. Councils all over London are giving planning permission to new out-of-town shopping developments which may well have an impact on neighbouring boroughs, and making other decisions which have an impact on their neighbours. Is it not about time that we changed the way in which boroughs operate and had a strategic overview which is not based on squabbling between neighbouring boroughs?
      Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman drifts into planning, which is just within the amendment's scope. If the borough of Croydon wanted to encourage a development by East Croydon station, but the mayor's vision was that that should be somewhere in north London, it will happen neither in Croydon nor in north London, where no one is promoting it in the first place. For the mayor to have the last word in planning policy is a barrier to planning development rather than the stimulus which the hon. Gentleman seems to expect.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: May I press my hon. Friend further on his excellent remarks? There is a lot of merit in what he says. However, as a former member of the GLC and a London borough, may I ask him how he will ensure, when borough representatives are elected to the GLA, that rather than think parochially they bear in mind the interests of London as a whole?
      Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend was a distinguished member of the GLC. I recall, on occasions, hearing him speak in that august body. Let the Committee be in no doubt that my hon. Friend was most robust on behalf of the citizens of Richmond, of whom I happen to be one. He took a very parochial view, and that is what the elected members of the assembly will do. They will speak up for their constituents. The Minister said that he did not want that; that the assembly should think strategically. If he expects that, he misunderstands human nature.
      I was making the point that there is growing concern that there will be clash and conflict between the boroughs and the authority. As I understand it, the Minister attended a meeting of the London borough leaders in December where exactly the same point was made to him.

      759
      The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) is not with us today, but when he was leader of Merton council he said:
      "I have been to cities in the US with a directly elected mayor and seen the distress it causes. The leader of the assembly and the mayor are continually fighting."
      That is the very point that we are making tonight.
      The famous Evening Standard survey of a little over a year ago showed that 10 out of 19 town hall Labour leaders were opposed to the Government's proposals. It said:
      "Only five of the 19 Labour council leaders gave their enthusiastic backing to Mr. Blair's idea. Four refused to comment and said they had not made up their minds, but 10 were against the proposal. Many Labour councillors feared that a directly elected mayor was more likely to come into conflict with an elected Greater London Authority, creating 'gridlock'."
      I could not have put it better myself.
      On Second Reading, the Minister countered that weight of concern by producing a letter from the Association of London Government which said that the Labour leaders were mistaken when they expressed their opposition to our proposals for an assembly of borough leaders. The letter deserves closer scrutiny. It was written by the leader of Haringey council, which has more fraud investigations going on than you, Mr. Lord, have had hot dinners. I would not hold it out as a shining example of the voice of London.
      But then we note that the letter was written, not by a Mr. Harris, but by a newly ennobled Lord Harris. The next thing that we observe is that he is one of Tony's cronies. Then we see that the letter is dated 14 December 1998. For those who were not present on Second Reading, that was the day before. What a surprise. One can imagine the Minister, who is an honourable man, picking up the phone and saying, "Toby, old chap, the Tories are banging on about their assembly proposals again. Do you think you could drop me a line generally rubbishing the whole idea?"
      Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that no such telephone conversation occurred. If he reads the letter—the Committee deserves to have it read—he will see that it says:
      "I note that the Opposition have put down a reasoned amendment to the GLA Bill Second Reading in which they call for an Assembly consisting of representatives nominated by the London boroughs…
      This is not a view shared by the majority of boroughs in the Association of London Government."
      That is the clear view: the Opposition proposal does not command the support of the majority of boroughs, on whose behalf they are supposedly arguing.
      Mr. Ottaway: The Minister has pre-empted my next point. I had a look at the nature of the consultation conducted by Lord Harris among the ALG and its membership and found that that view was not mooted in the ALG. It popped up at the leaders' committee several months ago. No vote was taken and there was no debate. The truth is that that letter is not worth the paper it is printed on.
      760
      We propose that the assembly be made up of representatives of the London boroughs. That sound and solid proposal would avoid the conflict described by the hon. Member for Putney and the gridlock described by the majority of Labour party leaders in London.
      Ms Linda Perham: I am concerned about the Conservative party proposal for using representatives from the boroughs, which would make 33 members. A deputy mayor would be extra. Labour Members are going for a streamlined authority of 25 members. How does the hon. Gentleman justify the extra cost? The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) talked about more politicians and bureaucrats. Are not Conservative Members worried about bulking out the bureaucracy?
      Mr. Ottaway: I find it hard to follow the hon. Lady's argument. As I understand it, assembly men will be paid. Although that is not in the Bill, and we have not had any word from the Minister, it is the general impression. There may be a financial saving, unless the hon. Lady is saying that the leaders of the London boroughs are paid more than the assembly men. We need to think through whether there will be more expense, and I venture to suggest that our proposal will be cheaper. The leader of Hammersmith council is trying to pay himself £40,000 a year, but Conservative Members would not support that.
      Mr. McNulty: There was Conservative support.
      Mr. Ottaway: The Conservatives did not support that; they voted against. As a result, the salary will be reduced to £22,000 from next year.
      The advantage of the assembly consisting of borough leaders is that the borough representative knows what is going on in his borough. He would be the bridge between the man in the street and the mayor. The Minister has said that the proposal will not work. His concept is that, once elected, assembly members should think strategically and have no regard for borough interests. He does not want them pushing forward their case at local level, but wants them to think of London as a whole. That is complete twaddle. It ignores human nature, but, even worse, it is an attempt to rewrite the democratic process.
      Does the Minister honestly think that constituency members will not argue their case? A feature of the Labour-dominated London fire and civil defence authority is that it is always cutting the number of fire appliances on the streets. Having recently closed a fire station in my constituency, it is seeking to close another.
      Does the Minister honestly believe that the assembly member for Croydon and Sutton would not lobby to keep such a fire station? Does he think that the assembly man for Greenwich and Lewisham would not have something to say about a proposal for a major development in Greenwich, or does he really think that the assembly man would stand back and think strategically? Does he think that constituency members on the police committee would not fight against closure of police stations? If he does, he totally misunderstands human nature. His only argument against an assembly of borough leaders is that they will fight their corner. Whoever is in the assembly will fight their corner.

      761
      6.45 pm
      The Bill confirms that the assembly will be enfeebled. Other than supplying the chairmen and members of the four functional bodies, and other than in the unlikely event of a two-thirds majority opposing a mayoral budget, it will be essentially powerless and useless. The assembly is superfluous and likely only to add to the mayor's problems and the degree of bureaucratic entanglement generated by the new system.
      That could be easily overcome by recognising the strength, importance and role of the London boroughs in the overall government of London and by having an assembly made up of borough representatives. London is a city of villages. The boroughs are the voice of the villages and the Minister ignores those voices at his peril.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I shall comment briefly on the Conservative amendments and what the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has said. The Liberal Democrats certainly do not support his idea of the assembly being made up of borough leaders, for a number of reasons. First, borough leaders have something else to do—run their boroughs.
      Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Our amendment provides for an assembly of borough representatives rather than borough leaders.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification, but in other debates the Conservatives have suggested that borough leaders would make up the assembly. Borough representatives would presumably be elected councillors, if there is to be any element of democracy. Even an ordinary ward councillor has an awful lot to do, or should be doing an awful lot, for his constituents, who he has been elected to represent.
      Asking people to represent their constituents in two different places would reduce their ability to hold the mayor to account. We want to ensure that the mayor is held properly to account. That should be done by elected members, whose sole job it would be, which would ensure that the assembly has more power. The Conservative amendment would reduce the power of the assembly and reduce the ability of its members to hold the mayor to account effectively, which is a dangerous path to take.
      The idea that borough representatives would take experience of what they do in the borough up to the assembly does not wash. The assembly will do different things primarily. The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that some borough powers are taken away by the Bill. That is true, and we shall return to the matter, but relatively few powers are being taken to the assembly. The assembly and the authority will focus far more on other issues—transport and the police in particular—so it is just as well that other people with a different mandate have the job of considering those issues.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who seemed to be worried that borough representatives would form a parochial Greater London authority. I share his concern, and I know that the Government are also concerned. Assembly members must be able to take a strategic overview. That will lead to better government for London, not worse.
      The point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South about the need for liaison between the boroughs and the GLA was well made, but it is debatable whether
      762
      it needs to be in the Bill. The boroughs, collectively, will want to liaise and consult with the GLA. Perhaps the Committee should be debating whether such an obligation should be in the Bill. Although that is not the main thrust of the Conservative amendment, it is an interesting point and I hope that the Committee will return to it.
      Our amendments seek to increase the number of assembly members by increasing the number that would be elected from constituencies and the number on the list. Our vision of London government differs slightly from the Government's, as we believe in a much stronger assembly that would be both more democratic and have more powers. In our response to the Government's consultation, we made it clear that we felt that the Greater London authority should have a voice in the running of the health service and further education in London. Further education and health are functions with a strategic characteristic, and it would make sense for a strategic body to be able to hold health and education authorities to account.
      Given that our model would oversee a much larger budget than the Bill proposes, it is important to have more assembly members to fulfil those tasks effectively.
      Mr. Forth: As the hon. Gentleman develops his argument for an increase in the number of representatives, and before we are asked to decide on the merits of the case, will he give us his estimate of the increase in the cost to London taxpayers of that level of representation?
      Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point: the House should always consider the cost of proposals before it. If he reads the amendments he will see that we propose to increase the number of representatives from 25 to 40—an increase of 15. The Conservative party wants an increase of eight. The costs involved are not huge. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Liberal Democrats did not want a mayoral office to be created. Were that option before us today, a huge sum could be saved, allowing us to have even more members of a proper assembly. The mayor is an expensive element because of all the trappings of mayoral office.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I note that the hon. Gentleman is a recruit to Herbert Morrison's theory, which was that the health service should be within the control of the then London county council. How does he imagine local government could possibly control a national service, and how would that dovetail with surrounding national health service priorities?
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to continue my point. I did not realise that I was a recruit to Herbert Morrison's theory. He was a distinguished politician and had the good idea that we should hold public services to account through local government. Ministers say that this is not local government, but citywide government. It is a unique form of government. Liberal Democrats believe that NHS planning should be done regionally and on a strategic basis, and that it should be held to account regionally and strategically. The sort of issues involved in a health

      763
      authority the size of London's would be suitable for this type of body. As the Minister said, it does not replicate local government.
      Mr. Gapes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would be happy to have different provision for medical treatment in different regions of the country? Is the Liberal Democrat policy now to have separatism within the health service and other services?
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. If he believes that we have national standards and a uniform service provision in the health service now because it is planned nationally, he has clearly not visited hospitals and health authorities around the country. They have totally different purchasing plans and service levels now. We simply argue that the health service should be democratic, which is why we want to expand the number of assembly members and hold the health service to account. I am more than happy to see different services provided across the country, but the idea that that does not happen now is nonsense.
      Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman's proposal for strategic control of the health service existed on a local basis until the end of the 1980s. I am glad to say that we reformed it. Local government representatives sat on family practitioner committees. I happened to chair one such committee at that time, and it was difficult to get a decision out of that forum. Does the hon. Gentleman want a strategic authority that is unable to make decisions about the NHS?
      Mr. Davey: Just because a previous form of democracy within the health service did not work does not mean that we cannot make it work. It works effectively in other countries, such as Sweden. The Landsting, which are equivalent to large county councils, hold the health service to account and look after major expenditure raised from taxation. The idea that one cannot make the health service democratic does not bear examination. I agree with the hon. Lady that previous systems were not perfect, but we cannot reform democracy by abolishing it. We seek to improve it.
      Democracy in the health service can be introduced at local government level. It is absurd that in the London boroughs, social services are separate from health services and therefore unable to join their budgets to achieve greater efficiency and co-operation. I had an interesting dialogue with the Minister on the subject recently and I know that the Government want to bring those services together. I hope that doing so will not reduce accountability. We welcome the Government's desire to increase that.
      The other reason that we want more representatives is to give the assembly more power. We want it to be able to hold the mayor to account more effectively. Our model would give the assembly more power than the model proposed in the Bill. More fundamentally, an increased number of representatives would give the assembly greater representation. Even under our proposals, each member would still represent fewer people than a London Member of Parliament does, but members would clearly be more representative.
      764
      Our proposals are logical and consistent with our proposals for the electoral system, which we will debate later. We favour the single transferable vote system, which requires multi-member constituencies. Such a system is logical if we have more assembly members. Increasing the number of members to 40 would facilitate that.
      My arguments so far have been based on our perfect model for the Greater London authority, which would give the assembly more power. However, the argument for having more members still holds under the Government's proposals—the number of functions that the Government propose to give the Greater London authority and how they want to elect it. In terms of representation, an increased number of members will enable the authority to be more representative, which will increase accountability and links with constituents.
      We also want members of the authority to be active on the committees. The Government are setting up a number of bodies: Transport for London; the London Development agency; the Metropolitan Police authority; and the London Fire and Emergency Planning authority. There should be enough assembly representatives to ensure that they are held properly to account. The mayor will be held to account for how he runs those bodies.
      Mr. Randall: I am a little confused. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman suggests that there should be no constituency link and, on the other, he says that the increased number of representatives would increase the link with constituencies. Which does he think will benefit the assembly?
      7 pm
      Mr. Davey: I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused. Whatever body people are elected to, they have a constituency. It may not be a parliamentary constituency or a borough constituency, but they have a constituency. If there were 40 members, and 23 were directly elected from constituencies—as our amendment proposes—the currently proposed boundaries would have to be changed.
      Mr. Randall: I am confused, because earlier, when the hon. Gentleman agreed with some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), he was worried about the link with the constituency as a place. The suggestion now seems to be that the increase in numbers will be beneficial, as the assembly men will have a link with a geographical location.
      Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that clarification, because I clearly misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention. The point that I was making earlier was that we did not want the constituencies to be the same as the boroughs. We did not want members of the assembly to speak for the royal borough of Kingston or the borough of Richmond. Unless we are to have a list system for the whole of London, they will have constituencies with which they will have a link. The point that I was making to the hon. Member for Gainsborough was that the constituencies should not be identical to the current boroughs, because that would add to the parochialism.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, as they would not have a direct constituency link,

      765
      all the new Liberal Democrat members would speak for his party? What does he mean? Who else would they speak for, apart from themselves?
      Mr. Davey: I am slightly confused by the hon. Lady's questions. The Liberal Democrats' preferred electoral system is the single transferable vote, which includes multi-member constituencies, so assembly members would have a constituency link and would be standing for a party. We admit that the Government are unlikely to change their mind and opt for a single transferable vote electoral system for the Greater London authority. We shall have to live with the dual system, which has constituencies and party lists. We believe that people will be free to speak for their constituencies, so I do not understand the hon. Lady's point.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I simply want a little clarification, because I am not terribly bright. The hon. Gentleman says that it does not matter if assembly members do not have constituencies, because they will nevertheless speak for their constituencies. There is certainly a problem with the English language here—which is not new, heaven help us. If they are not speaking for their political party or for a particular geographical area, how do they define their constituency representations?
      Mr. Davey: Assembly members will speak for their constituents and for their political party. Members from the party lists will not have a geographical constituency, but the directly elected members will, and we have no problem with that. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was worried that I was being inconsistent. He suggested that I was against parochialism, and was therefore against constituencies, but that does not follow. I was concerned that, under the Conservative amendment, the constituencies would be the same as the boroughs, so there would be competing forces within a borough to represent the area. That would increase parochialism. If the constituencies are different, that is unlikely to happen.
      I hope that I have made myself clear to the hon. Lady, but I am more than happy to take another intervention.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is as clear as the Liberal Democrat party ever is.
      Mr. Davey: In the hon. Lady's opinion.
      The idea of having more members on the assembly fits in with the Government's plans, because it would allow greater representation and increased accountability, and would enable members to be more active on committees. I wonder whether the real reason why the Government have gone for such a small number of members is because they are worried about the tabloids. They are concerned about arguments, such as that made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), that this proposal would be costly. They want a soundbite: they want to say that this will be a lean machine—a slim, streamlined government.
      We argue that it is pretty lean and streamlined at 40 members—which is fewer than most borough councils have—as it is being asked to look after transport for the whole of London and to have a link with the Metropolitan Police authority. We do not think that an assembly of 40 members would be costly and weighed down.
      766
      The Government should reflect on our proposals to give the assembly more members. I hope that they will leave a door open, because as the Greater London authority develops over time—if it follows the model proposed by the Government—in a few years, if the Labour party is re-elected and its creation is doing well, unlike the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), it may want to give it more functions. If it gives the authority more functions, it may want it to have more members. I hope that the Government will not close the door on the idea that the assembly should have more members and should become more powerful.
      I shall deal with two other amendments. Amendment No. 24 concerns the Local Government Commission and boundary changes. It is rather odd that any proposal to consider the boundaries will be triggered by the Secretary of State. The boundary commission has long had a rolling programme for parliamentary constituencies and European parliamentary constituencies. Under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the commission is required to report not less than every eight years and not more than every 12 years, so it is automatic and is not at the behest of the Secretary of State. We propose that, rather than the Secretary of State being the trigger, it is left to the Local Government Commission to instigate reviews of the GLA boundaries. That would remove some power from the Secretary of State—the Minister will see, as we go through the Bill, that that is a theme of our amendments—and would ensure that there is no suspicion of gerrymandering when the GLA boundaries are reviewed.
      I think it is amendment No. 75 in which the Conservatives are proposing that the rules governing the constituency boundaries in the GLA could be varied. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with that. We think that it makes sense to have flexibility.
      I hope that the Minister will cover our substantive point. We believe that there should be more assembly members to ensure that the mayor is properly held to account.
      Mr. McNulty: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to amendment No. 75, which is in the next group of amendments. It is a daft idea for the boundary commission, suitably empowered, to review the GLA boundaries within 12 months of every election. He referred to the commission's eight to 12-year rolling programme, but for some peculiar reason he wants the review of GLA boundaries to be carried out 12 months after the election, which is rather silly.
      I have to say, with the greatest respect and the best will in the world, that the hon. Gentleman wittered on for more than 20 minutes and said precisely nothing, other than the mantra-like incantation we always get from Liberal Democrats that if they say something often enough it becomes true. He argued that more members equals greater representation. Why? He gave no reason—just that more members equals greater representation. We were told that if we increased the number of assembly members it would give them more power. We were not given the reason why—just that it would, as though Paddy could sprinkle magic dust over them and they would have more power because there would be 40 of them.
      Let us talk about realities. Why do the Liberal Democrats want 40 members? It is because some candidates from their party may get elected. In all

      767
      likelihood, under the current proposals, no Liberal Democrats will be elected—absolutely none. Let us be honest.
      The Liberal Democrats might just squeeze one of the pompous little clones coming out of Cowley street into a directly elected position if there were an increase from 14 to 23. If tonight's speeches are anything to go by—and we face more of the same for two months in Committee—the Liberal Democrats would be lucky to get one if there were 100 directly elected members. No justification has been offered for 23 as opposed to 14, as in the Bill, or for 17 as opposed to 11 in terms of the list.
      Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is to charm what the Deputy Prime Minister is to sophistication. Sometimes, having more elected members enables a Government to be held more to account, and is more representative. Otherwise, it could be argued that this place should have 100 Members: then—following the hon. Gentleman's argument—this place would be no less representative and we would be able to hold the Government effectively to account. There are many cases where having more elected representatives increases democracy and improves accountability.
      Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is hoist on his own petard. I did not hear "sometimes" or "on some occasions" when he was waxing lyrical in his peroration. Now, in response to what I have said, those expressions trickle out. Yes, of course, sometimes more members means greater representation—sometimes. That is not what he said earlier. As for his joke, the hon. Gentleman should give Bob Monkhouse his joke book back. With all good will, I do not treat the Liberal Democrats' proposals seriously at all because they are loaded with self-interest and nothing more.
      I say to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the Conservative spokesman, that at least his party's proposals are legitimate. We have heard them before; they are not new, they are old hat and they are hackneyed, but at least they are legitimate. I happen to believe that the proposals are not the right way to go, but the hon. Gentleman described his case, extremely well, as complete twaddle, and so are the proposals.
      In terms of the strategic governance of London, the Conservative proposals offer no way forward at all. They may be a pro tem measure, following the vandalism of destroying the GLC and putting the London residuary body in place. A plethora of bodies were generated, four of which were on the model proposed by the Conservatives. However, the London planning advisory committee, within a framework, worked, as did the London research centre, the London borough grants committee and—despite the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South—the London fire and civil defence authority.
      In terms of looking after small portions of the strategic concerns of London, having indirectly appointed members from boroughs has worked—but only as a pro tern measure. We are putting those bodies back together, and adding our proposals on transport and other areas. To suggest that indirectly appointed members from each borough should carry out those functions is a complete nonsense. That does not fit with the thrust of the Bill at all, and should be rejected.
      768
      The hon. Member for Croydon, South has suggested a number of times—although his contributions belie it—that he is the fount of all knowledge when it comes to human nature. I said on Second Reading that the notion that, somehow, all assembly members—directly elected or otherwise—for the 14 constituencies, or the 11 on the list, will be parochialism-free is nonsense. The notion that the member representing Brent and Harrow might just occasionally look after the interests of Brent and Harrow in a strategic sense, or might speak for the people, is fair. However, the undemocratic measure proposed by the amendment would institute and formalise the notion of parochialism.
      Within the strategic context of London, there is a distinct north-west London view that is different from a west London view and from a north London view—and is certainly different from anything south of the river. I would expect my assembly member to represent that view, and Brent and Harrow sit together neatly in all sorts of ways. However, the assembly member should represent those views in the context of the strategic whole that is London.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made one good point—there may have been others; I may be ungenerous. He said that despite all the fears and scaremongering, the Bill does not significantly diminish the power of boroughs as was suggested on Second Reading and during the passage of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. The Bill takes some powers away within a strategic framework, but that is right and proper.
      7.15 pm
      Within that context—because we are, after all, talking about the composition of the assembly in terms of the number of constituencies—I believe that the model proposed in the Bill is the only appropriate one. The notion of multi-member constituencies and single transferable vote—all that nonsense—does not work, either.
      The notion of nominating representatives from boroughs has been mentioned. The point was made that leaders would be too busy, but, to be fair to the hon. Member for Croydon, South, there is no reference to leaders, only to nominated representatives. The notion that they could do the job that full-time members of the GLA will be charged with—that of looking after London's strategic interest—is complete nonsense.
      The proposition that, somehow, we should have more members to sprinkle around the committees is also nonsense. Full-time members will be charged with looking after London's strategic vision, and they can probably manage two or three committees. Certainly, that is something that the Liberal Democrats in Harrow could never manage. They were never there—even when they were supposed to be running the place. In the interests of the strategic vision for London, as outlined in the Bill, the only way forward is the 14-11 split in terms of the constituencies, as alluded to earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction.
      I wish to make one throwaway point. I would not wish people to think that I am a pedant, but I do not understand why amendment No. 13 has been included in this group as it does not fit in with what the hon. Member for Croydon, South said about appointed members.

      769
      The amendment proposes that one borough should equal one constituency. I do not know how that fits in with the group, but it may be a slip-up. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments—they are nonsense.
      Mr. Leigh: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) was saying about the one and only Liberal who might serve on the GLA, because I had the distinction of being the only sitting member of the GLC ever to lose to a Liberal, thereby ensuring that the Liberals achieved, in the shape of Adrian Slade, their one and only representative ever on the old GLC.
      This has been an interesting debate, and has shown up some of the difficulties that the new body will face. I have considerable sympathy for what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said. I have served on boroughs and on the GLC, and I am genuinely neutral on the matter. I am an interloper from the rural fields of Lincolnshire—I have no stake at all. Hon. Members might wonder why I am speaking in the debate. In any event, I shall be brief and share my experiences with the Committee.
      If representatives were elected on to the new body from boroughs, they would see themselves as being the voice of the borough on the new body, rather than the voice of the people. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South may think that that is fair enough. However, I used to serve on organisations such as the London Boroughs Association, and the problem is that it would not be the leader of the council who would be nominated to serve on the body—he would be far too busy; it would not even be the high-fliers—the chairmen of the committees; it would be the semi-retired, older members—Alderman Pompous or Councillor Hack—who would be put on the new body,
      Having served on bodies such as the LBA, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South that they are irredeemably tedious and are staffed by people who, although they are very worthy, would not set London alight. I am not sure that anyone serving on the new body would be capable of setting London alight, but those people certainly would not. I have some doubts about what my hon. Friend said, but the amendment is perfectly serious and should be debated. My hon. Friend said that there would be tension between the GLA and the boroughs. However, if there were no tension, there would be no point in having the GLA. Tension can be a creative and useful force.
      We all know that the old Greater London council did not work very well, although I greatly irritated Lady Thatcher by voting against its abolition at every stage, because I was convinced that nothing would be achieved by that, and I still believe it. Nothing has been achieved politically, because the powers were simply passed down from a body that we sometimes won to bodies in inner London that we never won. A lot of irritation was caused to London people. The party has now, wisely in my view, gone back on the policy of abolishing the GLC. It still does not believe in the GLA, but it accepts the concept of London government in the shape of a mayor.
      There will always be tensions; one cannot avoid them. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is trying to do: he wants to create something more sensible and creative that will work in
      770
      the way that the GLC never did. The GLC did not work well because it was always trying to be a strategic body, but that is an amorphous phrase that has little meaning. What is a strategic body? Funnily enough, the GLC worked better in its old days as the London county council, when it was not a strategic body and carried out direct functions involving public housing and other matters. I say that as a Conservative Member, knowing that we never won the LCC.
      Mr. Brooke: We did.
      Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend is a distinguished historian, and I knew that he would interrupt me, but I think that I am right in saying that we never won the LCC after the second world war, although we had a distinguished record in running it sometimes before then.
      There will always be problems. My view is that the GLA is probably doomed as a body. It will come into being and work, but the centre of power in London government is now moving remorselessly towards the mayor's office. That is where all the political interest will be and where all the high fliers will want to end up. I fear that the GLA will become a token body, at best a creature of the mayor.
      I have adduced all the problems, but what is the solution? It is easy to criticise, but far more difficult to be in the Minister's seat and try to create systems that work. We have had so many models of government for London. I do not know what the solution is, but I have an idea. Perhaps we should not have members of the GLA appointed directly from the boroughs, for the reasons that I have given; perhaps we should not go down the route proposed by the Liberals, which seems to be unduly cumbersome; and perhaps a solution that used to work quite well in the early days of the GLC, before I joined it, is sensible.
      The GLC used to have separate members who effectively represented boroughs, rather than individual constituencies, as was the case when I joined. They were not borough members, but they represented areas that were similar or exactly equal to the boroughs, so they had a borough interest. It has been said repeatedly in this debate—and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South rightly chided me on the point—that, whether members represent boroughs, constituencies or wards, they will inevitably take some parochial interest; and perhaps that is no bad thing. If people were elected to the GLA to represent areas corresponding to boroughs, they would be able to balance priorities between parochial and wider London interests.
      I want to say a word in defence of members of the old GLC, and people who will now no doubt serve on the new GLA. They have often had a bad name. I served happily on the GLC with my current pair—although we are not allowed to pair now—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who was a conscientious member of the GLC, although we disagreed politically.
      It is true that many members of the GLC were parliamentarian manqués and tried to create a little parliament over the river, which may have been rather pathetic in many ways, but people such as Horace Cutler, Desmond Plummer and Richard Brew on my side,

      771
      and many on the other side, were absolutely committed to good governance in London, and I am sure that those who serve on the new GLA will be equally committed.
      Mr. Darvill: Once again, the Opposition are flawed in their thinking. We will frequently return to the overarching theme that the GLA will be a strategic authority. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, I do not consider that an amorphous concept: I think that it is relevant and needed.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) made two major points against the Bill's provisions, in support of the amendment. He complained that powers and duties were to be taken away from local authorities and that there was no obligation on the mayor and assembly to liaise with those authorities. I believe that he was wrong—powers will not be taken away from local authorities. Clause 27 sets out expressly the powers that the GLA will have: it prohibits expenditure on housing, education, social services and health services. No doubt when the Committee discusses the GLA's general powers, more consideration will be given to how local authorities will be affected.
      The strategic role of Londonwide non-elected bodies will be taken back under the democratic accountability that was removed by the previous Government when they abolished the GLC. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) listed those bodies clearly a few moments ago.
      On liaison, the hon. Member for Croydon, South was again wrong. For example, clause 126 provides that each London borough council will provide local implementation plans for transport strategy. Both implicitly and expressly, that creates the liaison that he complained was not in the Bill.
      The amendment suggests a larger, non-elected, nominated body, which would inevitably be parochial and undemocratic because of its constitution. That is basically wrong. I have greater sympathy with the Liberal amendments in the group, but the argument for them has not been clearly made and I think that, on balance, a 25-member assembly will be right. I urge the Committee to reject all the amendments.
      Mr. Brooke: The clause 1 stand part debate concerned the main and essential principle of the Bill, and everything that follows clause 1 is essentially detail. We embarked on that detail on the previous group of amendments. I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) that the best is the enemy of the good, but the fact remains that it is our duty, both down on the Floor of the House and for weeks and weeks Upstairs, to seek to improve the Bill, as we are setting a framework that will govern London well into the next millennium.
      A debate on the detail is important, and I hope that the Committee's enthusiasm can be maintained throughout our proceedings, so that we can remain vigilant. We do not think that everything in the Bill is bad—I have already acknowledged that there are good things about it—but, even if we do not aim to make the good best, there is no reason for not seeking to make the good better, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on initiating this debate.
      772
      As I understand it, the Government's main objection to the amendment is that, if the assembly simply consists of representatives of the boroughs, nimbyism will flourish and a strategic view will not be taken. I am not my brother's keeper, so of course I do not know every single thing that my Member of the European Parliament does, but the only time I ever come across him is when he is taking up domestic matters in the constituency that have nothing to do with Europe. No doubt he spends some time on Europe, but he has no hesitation at all in taking up any domestic, local issue if it will gain him some column inches in the local press. Clearly, in that respect he is not doing his European job per se.
      What my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said about the GLC, from his direct experience, reinforces my uneasy feeling that the enthusiasm for concentrating on people who will take only a strategic view will not insulate us from people who will in fact take considerable interest in local matters.
      7.30 pm
      The great Lord Slim, commander of the 14th Army in the second world war, wrote in an essay after he had ceased to be an active soldier, that it was characteristic of the British Army that it was always required to fight uphill, and always required to fight at the juncture of two or more maps. The logic of that was that the strategists did not place the Army in the best possible position in which to fight a war. One of the characteristics of charity law nowadays is that trustees are supposed to exercise strategic roles and to guide their charities towards long-term aims. In my experience, however, on every charity on which I have served the trustees have become enormously preoccupied with local detail, and they do not, except in very large charities, fulfil that strategic role.
      The party list system will cause those who choose candidates to mark people on how strategic they are being. It is also true, however, that if one wishes to be elected or re-elected to anything, one must have a public persona. It would surprise me if those who serve on the London assembly do not seek to acquire a public persona through their actions. I am not convinced that nimbyism will be absent under the Government's proposals.
      My second point relates to our other debates on constitutional reform, such as the forthcoming debate between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. If the Lords were to seek greater powers, those powers could be taken only from the Commons. In the same way, if the Government are not to surrender powers to the mayor, the mayor can receive powers only from the boroughs. The boroughs are the check on the mayor, and will provide scrutiny of the mayor. That will necessarily involve tension, but that is no disadvantage in comparison with what the Government propose. Tension can be highly productive.
      Thirdly, there is an old saying that it is sensible to turn poachers into gamekeepers. The Government's proposition in the previous set of amendments was that a gamekeeper should be turned into a poacher in the form of the deputy mayor. Whether that is sensible, I doubt. We shall later analyse the assembly's powers to hold the mayor to account, and I shall be surprised if those powers turn out to be other than fairly sparse.
      Fourthly, it is paradoxical that the Government are seeking in many other ways to devolve powers to local authorities. In the context of the government of London,

      773
      the Government expressed enthusiasm in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for the idea of involving local authorities in working with the police on better policing and on prevention of crime. That is good, but the logic is that the consultative responsibility for the police should be taken down to local authority level, and that is a subject that we may consider later in the Bill's passage. It is curious that all sorts of matters are being moved towards local authorities, but that the London local authority is not considered appropriate to fulfil the role for which the amendment presses.
      Finally, the Association of London Government has been kind enough to send all hon. Members advice on the clauses before us. It states:
      "In particular, the Association wishes to ensure that there are adequate arrangements for involving borough councillors in the activities of the new authority and its functional bodies where appropriate."
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South for having devised an amendment that responds so admirably to that desire.
      Mrs. Lait: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, because Bromley was the borough that took on the Greater London council's "Fares Fair" policy. Residents of Bromley still have concerns about the possible overweening power of an elected authority over the borough. The assembly will be responsible for transport, and that includes the underground. There are, of course, no tube stations in Bromley, and residents will closely examine any expenditure on the tube in case it disadvantages Bromley in any way.
      That is one reason why I support the amendment to allow representatives of the local authorities to make up the assembly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) drew a parallel with the role of Members of the European Parliament and the way in which their interests are parochial when they wish to get into the local paper. There is a further parallel with the Council of Ministers, which is made up of elected Members of Parliament who become Ministers who are nominated to sit on the relevant Council. The amendment is precisely analogous.
      I stand to be corrected, but I am not aware of the Labour party having put forward proposals to amend the treaty of Rome to change the system of the Council of Ministers. I should feel more convinced of the Government's desire to have an elected assembly if they would move towards an elected Council of Ministers in Europe, which would be an interesting constitutional upheaval. I shall go no further down that route, but I draw the parallel: the Council of Ministers is the authoritative body in the European Union, and if we are to have a truly authoritative body to run London, a nominated authority could be most effective in truly representing the voters and in knowing what the voters want.
      I have lived both north and south of the river, and I can agree and disagree with what has been said about disagreements between the two. It all depends on what the issue is. To say blithely that there is no continuity of interests in the geographic areas around London is to fly in the face of reality. There is no reason why we cannot have a truly effective authority, which the Government want, by having a representative authority rather than an elected one.
      Mr. Randall: The debate seems essentially to be about whether the emphasis of the strategic authority will be on constituency links, or, to put it in the more denigrating way that many hon. Members have put it, parochial matters. The Government appear to believe that the only way in which to make the authority strategic is to move away from the constituency link, although the directly elected members will, despite the largeness of their areas, retain a vestige of the link.
      I fervently believe in the constituency link. It is important to Members of Parliament, and it would be equally so for members of the assembly. That is not so say that I, like other hon. Members, cannot take the strategic view—if that is the correct buzz word. To be more old-fashioned about it, I would say that I put my country first, then my constituency and then, somewhere lower, my party. I do not understand why representatives from the boroughs could not put London first, their boroughs second and their party interests at the bottom of the list.
      I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I do not understand why the has-beens and the never-will-bes would be sent to such an important assembly. Occasionally, one is put on committees—I may have been on some myself—that are not necessarily for the high flyers and I am sure that I have a long and distinguished career ahead in such committees, but surely the boroughs will send their best people to ensure that they are represented in the way that they want.
      Unlike some Labour Members, notably the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), I concede that there should be much debate on the subject. There is a measure of consensus. If the Government are so unhappy about having nominated representatives in the boroughs, perhaps they will consider the possibility of directly elected members to represent boroughs rather than those larger and strangely tied together areas. For that reason, if our amendment is not accepted, I hope that the Government will consider maintaining some stronger form of constituency link than is proposed because that is the very basis of our democracy here.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: This has been a fascinating debate, with some remarkable contributions. The speech by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was surprising. In the beginning, he said that the Opposition believe in a mayor, sliding over the fact that that was a major U-turn on the part of the Conservative party. In fairness however, he barely got into his stride when his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) leapt to his feet. As a former Secretary of State for the Environment, he was much concerned at what he perceived to be a gross intrusion on the part of the mayor and the assembly in the boroughs' desires to create a strategy to remove their waste. He thought it appalling that individual boroughs should have to consider their neighbouring boroughs. That was from a member of a previous Administration who had permitted Westminster council to stop moving its waste by the River Thames and allowed it to move it by road with never a thought for the additional pollution that it put on the roads of Westminster's neighbouring boroughs. One reason why the boroughs welcome our proposal so warmly is because they and Londoners are crying out for a proper strategy for waste, recycling and improving our environment.

      775
      The basis of the argument put by the hon. Member for Croydon, South was that the best way to ensure that the assembly meets the needs of Londoners is to appoint one. Initially, he suggested the leaders of the 32 boroughs—I presume that he would have included the City of London, thus making it 33. He then changed to a representative of the boroughs, but proceeded to rubbish the boroughs—be they leaders, representatives or councillors. He was much exercised over a letter that my hon. Friend the Minister for London had occasion to read to the Committee, which he had received from our noble Friend Lord Harris and the Association of London Government.
      7.45 pm
      I trust that it will reassure the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) to hear that it was not this evening's amendments that occasioned the guard within the Bill to ensure that there is no conflict between the mayor, the assembly and the boroughs. The final paragraph of the letter from the ALG states:
      "Finally, we do not see the Assembly leading to conflict between the boroughs and the GLA. Our discussions with the Government leading up to the Bill have reassured us that the GLA is being designed to minimise conflict and to ensure collaboration. For instance, we particularly welcome the provisions of Clause 27, which prohibit the Mayor in becoming involved in key borough functions unless in co-operation".
      The basic argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, South is that the Opposition want the boroughs to send a representative, not a leader, because it is the best way to ensure that the assembly best serves the interests of the people of London. However, he then rubbished individual boroughs. Haringey and Hammersmith featured in his contribution. He accused the letter of my noble Friend Lord Harris of demonstrating nothing more than cronyism. Indeed, he stated that the letter from the ALG was not worth the paper that it was printed on. I find it bizarre that someone who clearly holds the borough representatives in such low regard is arguing that those are the people who should automatically be appointed to an assembly.
      The hon. Gentleman failed to touch on a particularly important point inasmuch as the Bill is about restoring a democratic voice to the people of London. The official Opposition's proposals would ignore the wishes of Londoners twice. In effect, they would ensure that their choice of borough representative would not be there to do the job that they had elected him or her to do. The proposals would also ignore the voice of Londoners in their directly elected mayor because an unelected assembly could scrutinise an elected mayor. That is hardly a democratic benefit; it is a democratic deficit twice.
      The contributions from Conservative Back Benchers were infinitely more constructive than those of the hon. Member for Croydon, South. The amendments that he tabled would wreck the provisions of the Bill—provisions agreed by Parliament and endorsed by the people of London in a referendum held only nine months ago. The contributions of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) were particularly positive in that both were concerned, in essence, with what is central to our Bill—the good governance of London.
      776
      The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) also made a somewhat surprising contribution inasmuch as she supports the amendment. Yet, when we debated the possibility of an elected deputy mayor earlier—also an Opposition proposal—she argued that directly elected assembly men would be much too busy attempting to reply to their correspondence to constituents to be able truly to scrutinise the mayor's proposals and policies. Apparently, by supporting this amendment, she is perfectly prepared to put in assembly men who have no mandate from the people of London, but who would not be able to deal with their constituents in the boroughs to which they were directly elected.
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) attaches importance to a constituency link. There will be constituencies; we have announced the new constituencies for which residents will vote for their assembly members. We are not attempting to mix and match or pour a quart into a pint pot, but proposing modern government of the sort that the people of London have shown, by their overwhelming support in the referendum, that they wish to have introduced.
      The Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill contained the question on the ballot paper that was put to the people of London in the referendum. It was quite explicit and asked
      "Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?"
      Around 70 per cent. of those who voted in the referendum voted yes, and there was a clear yes vote in every London borough. It is astonishing that the Conservative Opposition, which supported a yes vote during the referendum and approved an elected assembly, should come forward with tired old arguments about having appointees rather than elected members. Is that really the new democracy for the new millennium that they seek to establish?
      Several Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough, mentioned parochialism. Some felt that the authority would not play its proper part. The point is that the GLA will be a strategic authority concerned with matters that affect the whole of London. I touched lightly on the environment and a proper strategic waste disposal plan, and explained how one borough's actions can adversely affect the lives of people in neighbouring boroughs. That does not mean that the GLA will be unconcerned by issues that arise in individual boroughs or groups of boroughs but that, under the Bill, the GLA cannot ride roughshod over the interests of the boroughs or the decisions that they take. The boroughs do not therefore need to be represented on the GLA.
      As a strategic authority, it is essential that the GLA should focus on broad, Londonwide issues. Borough council members are elected to represent the views, and promote the interests, of their boroughs, but sometimes a broader perspective is necessary. It is that broader perspective that directly elected list members of the assembly will be expected to provide. The borough councils will of course continue to have a major part to play in the governance of London. Their role is carefully safeguarded by the Bill. They, if not the Conservative party, have recognised that the GLA is not a threat to them. I quoted the final paragraph of the letter from

      777
      the Association of London Government. Indeed, the ALG's briefing on the Bill states:
      "The ALG supports this major initiative to give Londoners an elected Mayor and Assembly".
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made several points in response to the Conservative amendments that chimed closely with our responses. He noted that the strategic nature of our proposals is essential. He inquired why there was no requirement on the mayor and assembly to have a strategic overview of health. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) touched on some of the reasons. There is a requirement in the Bill that the mayor must improve the health of Londoners, but that is part and parcel of the other strategic policies that the mayor and assembly will introduce.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton discerned a lack of democracy in our national health service. I am sure that he knows of the announcement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in which he listed in no small detail the true democratic perspective that will be brought to bear in respect of our NHS and our NHS trusts. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he wants social services and health departments to work more closely together for the benefit of our constituents. The Government have already begun to put that in place. The most recent standard spending assessment settlement has done precisely that.
      I found the Liberal Democrat amendments surprising. An assembly of 40 members is not what Londoners voted for. They backed our proposals for a small, streamlined assembly of 25 members. We intend to deliver for Londoners their wishes, as endorsed by the referendum. That is not through any concern about press comment, whether adverse or pro. We have said all along, in the Green Paper, the White Paper and in the Bill, that the assembly needs to be small, streamlined and strategic in focus. We think that 40 members would far too many. An assembly of 25 members will be large enough to allow it to perform its essential scrutiny and investigative roles without becoming unwieldy and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Its size will allow it to take a strategic view rather than a parochial one, which would lead to competition with the boroughs.
      The Liberal Democrats may have proposed a larger assembly because they want it, rather than the mayor, to perform executive functions. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned that point. To set his mind at rest, let me say that Transport for London is an executive arm of the mayor and assembly, not a body that will discuss what is required for London transport. It does not require membership from the boroughs because it will put in place the policies that the mayor will have campaigned on and that have been validated by the people of London. The Liberal Democrats clearly think that a larger body is needed, but we think that their proposals are a recipe for bigger, more bureaucratic government with more committees and, inevitably, less efficiency. In his typically robust and entertaining contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) shared his interpretation of precisely why the Liberal Democrats propose a larger assembly.
      Londoners want action. They backed our proposals for a directly elected mayor coupled with an assembly, thus ensuring that the mayor's activities are open
      778
      and accountable, because they want action taken in the areas of particular concern to all Londoners. If hon. Members consider the detail of the Liberal Democrat proposals, they will recognise that there is little logical in them. Why have 23 constituency members? I can at least understand—although I do not agree with it—the rationale for an assembly of 33 members, one for each London borough and one the for the City, or for our proposal for 14 constituency members under which we can combine two or three boroughs to form constituencies.
      The Liberal Democrat proposals could require boroughs to be divided up into new constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich pressed hard to find out who the Liberal Democrats thought representatives for such constituencies would be speaking for. It is an unnecessary and impractical proposal. Londoners could find themselves voting in an entirely new electoral area that was not a borough, an easily recognisable combination of boroughs or a parliamentary constituency but yet another electoral unit. That would produce confusion and severe irritation.
      If the amendments were accepted, they would be likely to delay the elections. The Local Government Commission would need to conduct a further review of constituencies, scrapping the thorough work that it has just completed which produced recommendations that have attracted little criticism. A new review would be particularly complex and controversial because the commission would be asked how best to divide up boroughs to create wholly new units. That is a recipe for delay and confusion. The Government believe that a directly elected assembly of 25 members is right for London; it was certainly backed by London. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
      8 pm
      Mr. Brake: I shall briefly pick out a number of the points made by the Minister. She said that Londoners did not vote for 40 assembly members. That is true, but they were not given that choice. If the assembly were to have 23 constituency members, there would be no need to split boroughs as it would be entirely possible to have an arrangement based on boroughs or parliamentary constituencies.
      The Minister referred to Transport for London, and we shall return to that matter at another time. However, I am surprised that the Government have chosen to exclude every single assembly member from Transport for London, as I would have thought that assembly members would have a view about transport in London and would have some interesting points to make to that body.
      The Minister has failed to respond to Liberal Democrat concern that only 25 assembly members might not have sufficient time to respond to Londonwide issues, to their constituencies, and to the demands of their committees. Many hon. Members will be aware that councils have difficulty in ensuring attendance at meetings and, if the assembly has only a small number of members, there might be difficulties in ensuring that there is adequate representation and adequate consideration.
      Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman talks about assembly members not having sufficient time, but his analogy is somewhat inaccurate: assembly members will be full-time members.
      Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for that intervention. However, she must also be aware that there will be

      779
      considerable demands on the assembly members because of the sizes of their constituencies and because the members will be a focus for many organisations. The hon. Lady laughs, but I am sure that she accepts that my point is correct. Will the Government reconsider the issue of the number of assembly members and consider whether an expansion of that number would not best serve the interests of Londoners?
      Mr. Ottaway: The debate has been a bit of a landmark for me, because the forthright speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) resulted in something on which I could agree with him: his views on the Liberal Democrats.
      After 25 minutes, I understood the drift of the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey): he was trying to argue that a member elected by proportional representation could speak up for his constituency. We look forward to hearing how that argument develops.
      I was especially grateful for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). When he and I were in the same association, plotting our political careers in the 1970s, it seemed that his ambitions would inevitably lead him to the Greater London council. For a Conservative Member, his speech was a bit off message, but he was right to highlight the problems that the assembly would inevitably face and he made a thoughtful and welcome contribution.
      We heard excellent speeches from other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) reached the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons, but it was a worthy effort. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was right to warn of the inevitable temptation for an assembly member to speak up for his or her own patch. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) drew an interesting parallel between the amendment and the Council of Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) correctly said that the boroughs would make their best proposals in any assembly of borough representatives.
      In her speech, the Minister referred, yet again, to the famous letter from Lord Harris, drawing attention to the fact that he did not think that the assembly would lead to conflict with the boroughs. However, Conservative Members made the point that Lord Harris did not fully consult the Association of London Government and that the letter does not reflect the views of the London boroughs, as was shown by the survey that was taken.
      Mr. Raynsford: A year ago.
      Mr. Ottaway: The Minister says, yet again, that it was a year ago, but I repeat what I told him on Second Reading that, bless its cotton socks, the Labour party has changed its mind on every fundamental issue of the past decade. It takes the biscuit for him to say that the London borough leaders have changed their minds in the past 12 months.
      The amendment would allow the London boroughs to be involved, right up to the hilt, in the Greater London authority. If the Government reject the amendment,
      780
      they will be telling the boroughs that they do not trust the boroughs to make the right decision. The Conservative party will continue to speak up for the London boroughs for a long time to come. We are not satisfied with the Minister's response and we wish to press the amendment to a division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 115, Noes 339.

      Division No. 38]

      [8.6 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Amess, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Lidington, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Bercow, John

      Luff, Peter

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Boswell, Tim

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Madel, Sir David

      Brazier, Julian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Burns, Simon

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cash, William

      Norman, Archie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Page, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Paice, James

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Paterson, Owen

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Pickles, Eric

      Colvin, Michael

      Prior, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Randall, John

      Cran, James

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan, Alan

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Evans, Nigel

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Faber, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Flight, Howard

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Garnier, Edward

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gibb, Nick

      Spring, Richard

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Steen, Anthony

      Gray, James

      Streeter, Gary

      Green, Damian

      Swayne, Desmond

      Greenway, John

      Syms, Robert

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hawkins, Nick

      Townend, John

      Hayes, John

      Trend, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Viggers, Peter

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Walter, Robert

      Horam, John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Willetts, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Wishire, David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Yeo, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Key, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Mr. Stephen Day and

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Mr. Tim Collins.

      781

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Ainger, Nick

      Corbett, Robin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allan, Richard

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Allen, Graham

      Cotter, Brian

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cranston, Ross

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cummings, John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Baker, Norman

      Dalyell, Tam

      Banks, Tony

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Barnes, Harry

      Darvill, Keith

      Barron, Kevin

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Battle, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Denham, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Benton, Joe

      Doran, Frank

      Berry, Roger

      Dowd, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Betts, Clive

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Edwards, Huw

      Boateng, Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Brake, Tom

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      Breed, Colin

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flynn, Paul

      Browne, Desmond

      Follett, Barbara

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burnett, John

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Burstow, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Galbraith, Sam

      Caborn, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Goggins, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gunnell, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hanson, David

      Clelland, David

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Colman, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Connarty, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Hesford, Stephen

      782

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hill, Keith

      Miller, Andrew

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mitchell, Austin

      Home Robertson, John

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Illsley, Eric

      Oaten, Mark

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jamieson, David

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jenkins, Brian

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pond, Chris

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Pound, Stephen

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keetch, Paul

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kidney, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Radice, Giles

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rapson, Syd

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rendel, David

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Laxton, Bob

      Rooker, Jeff

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooney, Terry

      Levitt, Tom

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Roy, Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Ruane, Chris

      Livingstone, Ken

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Livsey, Richard

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Lock, David

      Salter, Martin

      McAllion, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCabe, Steve

      Sawford, Phil

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McDonnell, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Singh, Marsha

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marek, Dr John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Snape, Peter

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Martlew, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stevenson, George

      Meale, Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Merron, Gillian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      783

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Watts, David

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Webb, Steve

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Welsh, Andrew

      Stringer, Graham

      White, Brian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Swinney, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Willis, Phil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilson, Brian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Winnick, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wise, Audrey

      Trickett, Jon

      Wood, Mike

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Woolas, Phil

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Worthington, Tony

      Tyler, Paul

      Wray, James

      Vaz, Keith

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Jane Kennedy and

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'members' to end of line 6 and insert
      'representing the multi-member constituencies determined by the Local Government Commission under subsection (4) below.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 22, in page 2, line 7, after 'be', insert 'more than'.
      No. 74, in page 2, line 15, after 'Mayor', insert 'and'.
      No. 75, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'and the London members'.
      No. 76, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'or the London members'.
      No. 79, in page 2, leave out line 21.
      No. 25, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'of to second `the' in line 22.
      No. 34, in clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out from 'constituency' to end of line 37.
      No. 39, in page 4, leave out line 2 and insert
      'by single transferable vote as set out in Part IAAA to Schedule 2 of this Act'.
      No. 38, in page 4, line 2, at end insert
      'unless there are three or more candidates.
      (4A) If there are three or more candidates in an Assembly constituency—

      (a) the constituency member shall be returned under the alternative vote system in accordance with Part IA of Schedule 2 to this Act;

      (b) a voter's constituency vote shall accordingly be an alternative vote, that is to say, a vote capable of being given to indicate the voter's preferences from among the candidates.'.

      No. 10, in page 4, leave out lines 3 to 18.
      No. 40, in page 4, line 4, after first 'a', insert
      'candidate who is a member of a'.
      No. 41, in page 4, line 5, at end insert—
      '(b) a candidate on the list which has been submitted by a registered political party; or'.
      784
      No. 42, in page 4, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert—
      '(7) The person who is to be returned as Mayor shall be determined before it is determined who are to be returned as the Assembly members.'.
      No. 43, in page 4, leave out lines 14 to 18.
      No. 11, in page 4, leave out lines 24 and 25.
      No. 44, in schedule 1, page 141, leave out line 25.
      No. 29, in page 141, leave out lines 26 and 27.
      No. 30, in page 141, leave out lines 31 and 32.
      No. 46, in schedule 2, page 143, line 21, at end insert—'PART IAA—

      RETURN OF CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS FOLLOWING A VACANCY

        Application
        1. This Part of this Schedule applies where there are three or more candidates in an Assembly constituency.
        Candidate with overall majority of first preference votes
        2. If one of the candidates to be a constituency member receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the Assembly constituency that candidate shall be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.
        No candidate with overall majority of first preference votes
        3.—(1) If none of the candidates to be the constituency member receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the Assembly constituency, the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect.
        (2) The candidate with the fewest number of first preference votes is eliminated, and the second preference votes given for that candidate shall be ascertained.
        (3) The second preference votes under subsection (2) above shall be transferred to the other candidates, being added to the first preference votes cast for the other candidates.
        (4) If, following the recalculation under subsection (3) above, none of the candidates receives more than half of the votes, the remaining candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and the process in subsections (2) and (3) above is carried out.
        (5) The process continues until one candidate has received more than half of all the votes, and that person shall be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.
        (6) If, by reason of an equality of total number of preference votes, two or more candidates remaining in the contest each have the greatest total number of preference votes, the constituency returning officer shall decide by lots which of them is to be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.'.
        No. 47, in page 43, line 21, at end insert—PART IAAA—

      RETURN OF CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS
      Each vote shall have a single transferable vote, that is to say a vote—

      (a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and

      (b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

      (i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

      (ii) when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates'.

      No. 52, in page 143, line 21, at end insert—'PART IA—

      RETURN OF CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS

        Application
        1. This Part of this Schedule applies where there are three or more candidates in an Assembly constituency.
        Candidate with overall majority of first preference votes
        2. If one of the candidates to be a constituency member receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the Assembly constituency that candidate shall be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.
        No candidate with overall majority of first preference votes
        3.—(1) If none of the candidates to be the constituency member receives more than half of all the first preference votes given in the Assembly constituency, the following provisions of this paragraph shall have effect.
        (2) The candidate with the fewest number of first preference votes is eliminated, and the second preference votes given for that candidate shall be ascertained.
        (3) The second preference votes under subsection (2) above shall be transferred to the other candidates, being added to the first preference votes cast for the other candidates.
        (4) If, following the recalculation under subsection (3) above, none of the candidates receives more than half of the votes, the remaining candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and the proceed in subsections (2) and (3) above is carried out.
        (5) The process continues until one candidate has received more than half of all the votes, and that person shall be returned as the constancy member for that Assembly constituency.
        (6) If, by reason of an equality of total number of preference votes, two or more candidates remaining in the contest each have the greatest total number of preference votes, the constituency returning officer shall decide by lots which of them is to be returned as the constituency member for that Assembly constituency.'.
        No. 49, in page 143, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of line 25 on page 145.
        No. 53, in page 144, line 5, after 'constituencies', insert
        'with votes for candidates listed as members of a registered party counting towards the total vote of that party'.
        No. 54, in page 145, line 3, leave out from 'filled' to end of line 4 and insert—
        'as follows:

        (a) A quota shall be determined which is equal to the total number of votes polled for all the parties divided by the number of seats to be allocated plus one.

        (b) Votes cast for the candidate at the top of the party list shall be compared with the number of votes cast for the registered party to which that candidate belongs.

        (c) Where the candidate has fewer votes than the quota, the votes for that candidate will then be topped up to reach the quota using votes from the party vote, reducing the number of votes won by the party accordingly.

        (d) This process continues for each candidate on the list until the party votes have been exhausted, except where there are insufficient votes in the party vote to top up a candidate, in which case those votes are allocated to the next person on the list with sufficient votes, who moves one place up the list.'.

        No. 55, in page 145, line 3, leave out from 'filled' to end of line 4 and insert
        'in the order of votes cast for the candidates of that party, with the candidate receiving the highest number of votes being elected first.'.
        Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said that the list of
        786
        amendments sounds like the London bus timetable and the Minister for London and Construction—if I interpreted his lip movements correctly—said that he hoped that I knew all the amendments by heart.
        This collection of amendments—which are taken together for the convenience of the Committee and are, apart from the occasional insertion from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrat amendments—refers to the electoral system. There would not be a debate about structures of government in this country without debates about electoral systems.
        Mr. Forth: There would be if the hon. Gentleman was not here.
        Mr. Hughes: I do not think that that is true, although the right hon. Gentleman might like it to be true. I do not know what his view is, because he is always a maverick, but even his party wants to change the electoral system.
        I shall first issue a disclaimer to the Committee. As I have said before, I am not obsessive about electoral systems or electoral reform. I do not hold the view that there is a perfect electoral system in the world, nor do I think that there is an absolutely imperfect electoral system. All electoral systems are better or worse than one another. We have to select one according to a combination of the wisdom of experience and the objectives for which we set up elected bodies in this country.
        I shall describe the amendments—I need not do so at length, but different amendments have been grouped together. I shall then argue that there is a strong case, even at this stage in the proceedings, for reconsidering the electoral system that the Government have chosen to put before the Committee.
        After about 18 months of this Administration, we come to this debate with interesting recent experience which is relevant to the issue. Liberal Democrat Members welcome the new Government's willingness to be much more open-minded than their predecessors about constitutional matters. It is interesting that now that the Conservative party is in opposition and has no Members of Parliament in Scotland or Wales, a gradual conversion is taking place among Conservative Members.
        I did not leave the Committee during the previous debate to listen to a lecture, apparently entitled, "The British Way", which may have been given elsewhere in the City of Westminster. However, I understand that even the person who may have given that lecture now accepts that the most recent election was a watershed, and that the Conservatives have to move on and realise that the old order is changing and giving way to a new order.
        We welcome the Government's clear commitment—which we helped them to make when they were in opposition—to reconsider electoral systems. We are looking forward to changes in those systems in Scotland to govern the first elections to the Scottish Parliament and, in Wales, for elections to the Assembly. We welcome both of those innovations. Last year, a new electoral system was used for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which we also welcomed.
        There are interesting differences between all those systems and organisations. The Scottish Parliament system was the result of a consultative process. There were meetings between the Labour party, the Scottish National party, my party and, at the beginning,

        787
        the Conservative party. Not all the parties stayed the course; some withdrew. The trade unions and Churches were also involved. There was an attempt to come to an agreement in the Scottish convention. The electoral system in Scotland is the product of that. When we debated the Scotland Bill in the House and in Committee, we supported the proposals that we had agreed to in the convention.
        The difference between Scotland, which has a proportional system, and London is that we have not had such a convention in London. I slightly regret the fact that the Government did not see fit to hold a pre-legislative convention to find out what agreement there was. We must all take partial responsibility for that failure. I recognise that there was a Green Paper containing proposals that marked a change in the Government's position.
        The Welsh Assembly will also be elected using a proportional system. That proposal did not arise from a convention—the Government were persuaded of the merit of the case. The system chosen was not the one that we would have devised, but it is certainly better than the system that the Government inherited in Great Britain generally.
        No one disputes the fact that the proportional representation system that was adopted and implemented for the Northern Ireland Assembly was the only way to secure people's participation in the electoral process. One hopes that has been a contributory factor in paving the way towards the resolution of Northern Ireland's conflicts, which have gone on for a long time. The postscript to that point is that Northern Ireland has for some time had a system based on electoral reform and one other than first past the post. Like the Irish republic, Northern Ireland has found that reform convenient and helpful.
        That is the recent history of legislation for domestic representative bodies. Just before Christmas, we debated the final chapter of that legislation—the electoral system for the European Parliament. Again, to their credit, the Government changed their position and accepted that a proportional system should be used. After much huffing and puffing and an attempt at the other end of the corridor to blow the House down, it was accepted that the democratically elected, representative House should prevail, and there will now be a proportional system of election for the European Parliament.
        That debate has a subplot, which will be raised in reference to the amendments. If a proportional system incorporates a list system, should one have the famous open list or the closed list? The experts will say that there are many subplots. Belgium has produced a version of the list system. Chocolates, chips and electoral systems are clearly the products of that fine kingdom. There are d'Hondt versions and many others.
        The basic question for a simple person like me is whether to have an open list, which means that people can choose the position of candidates on the list, or a closed list, in which people can take or leave those positions. Liberal Democrat Members have always argued that, in a list system, it is always better to give people freedom of choice so that the party does not impose its choice.
        788
        We have made progress. In all the electoral legislation discussed in this Parliament, the Government have introduced a proportional system. We welcome that. The respective systems are not the same, but that is not inappropriate for two obvious reasons. First, self-evidently, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are different, and elections for a European Parliament are for a different kind of body.
        Secondly, the argument that the system in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales must be used in London does not apply because unless electors in London very cleverly arrange their affairs, they do not have a vote in elections in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. The existence of another system in one of the other three countries in the United Kingdom is not an argument for having a similar system in London.
        As for London, I pay tribute to the Government, the Secretary of State, who is absent but who is responsible for the Bill, and his Ministers. When we started the debate on London, there was no commitment to proportional representation. It was an open question and the Government consulted on it. They then listened to the overwhelming response of the respondents—many were not political parties or members of political parties, but included lay organisations as well as those concerned with elections—which was that London needed a proportional system.
        It is a good thing that the Greater London assembly, whatever its size—a subject that we have just debated—will have a political proportionality. That is welcome for one overriding reason, namely that London is a very large electoral village as well as being the capital city. It contains communities that are very different, geographically and in terms of background. In order to have a spread of representation, we have to make sure that two things happen.
        First, as was said earlier today, we must ensure that the voice of the Kent part of London, the Surrey part of London, the Hertfordshire part of London, the Essex part of London as well as that of the old Middlesex part of London—the largest component—is heard and is heard in different ways. The Minister and I both live south of the river but where he lives, people's county cricket team is Kent whereas mine is Surrey, and across the river people's county cricket team is Middlesex. All these people who are part of Greater London must have their important history reflected.
        8.30 pm
        Secondly, a proportional system—the better the proportionality, the better the system—will allow the creation of an assembly that is balanced in terms of gender and background. For example, the large black community should be able to have black representatives, and the many Asian people in London, some of whom have been citizens here for two, three or four generations, should be able to identify with representatives from the same cultural background. None of us would deny that the objective of the system must be to ensure that the cosmopolitan basis of London is represented.
        Ideally, we want a system that allows people to choose not only between parties but within parties, and to choose individuals who are not members of any party. I hope that one of the results of this exercise will be the election of some independents. The hon. Member for Tatton

        789
        (Mr. Bell) has shown what a great contribution an Independent can make to a legislative and deliberative assembly. Others have done the same—A. P. Herbert is one who springs to mind from my reading of contributions over the years.
        Voters should be able to choose between people in the parties. I hope that we maximise the opportunity for that. For example, a Conservative voter in an outer-London borough, or in my borough, might want to make sure that there are more women in politics. It might be something about which that voter feels strongly, and he should be allowed to say that he would rather have a woman represent him than a man. A young voter might think that there should be more young people in politics. He might not have made up his mind what party he supports, but if he finds a young candidate who seems to be on the ball, he might vote accordingly.
        People might also vote for a candidate according to experience and profession. A trade unionist might think it important to elect someone who got his hands dirty doing real work rather than someone who has been only a manager or an administrator. I met people from the pensioners lobby today—I am sure that they will say it is important to include some pensioners in the assembly. Those are our objectives. Before dealing directly with the amendment, I wanted to outline the common ground that exists between us and our common desire to make sure that, whatever disagreements we may have about how we get there, we end up with a body that commands the confidence of people from Bromley to Barnet and the confidence of people of all ages, cultures and ethnic backgrounds.
        Mr. Forth: In the context of the desirability of independent members, on which the hon. Gentleman lays great stress, has he considered the implications of clause 11(2)? With reference to the filling of vacancies, it states:
        "If the London member was returned as an individual candidate…the vacancy shall remain unfilled until the next ordinary election."
        That means that if in the London party elections the hon. Gentleman and I elect a sturdily independent candidate who is not on a party list, and if that candidate then resigns or—heaven forbid—dies in office, we risk that vacancy remaining unfilled and our being left unrepresented. If my reading of the subsection is correct, is not it a disincentive to vote for a sturdily independent candidate?
        Mr. Hughes: Although I do not want to be tempted too far down the road that leads to a subsequent debate, I shall deal with that point.
        I understand why the clause is drafted as it is. The Government have distinguished, as they must, between a person who stands on a party ticket, on a list, and a person who is elected as a cross-London member, as an individual, who, by definition, has no one in the same party as him or her. If an elected party member dies or resigns, the list system not only in this country but worldwide provides that the next person named on the list gets in. People understand that in advance; they know that, if a party gains five seats, they get the first five people on the list, and that, if a vacancy arises, they get the sixth. However, a practical difficulty arises when an independent member is lost.
        790
        I share the view of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that the right answer is not to leave a vacancy. I hope that, when we come to the wider debate, we shall find ways of holding an election to fill the vacancy because I agree that it is unfair that, if we end up with a London assembly of 25 members with one or two independents and one of the latter dies or resigns—perhaps for unavoidable family reasons—we shall lose that independent voice for the rest of that assembly's life. That assembly may sit, however, for four or five years. If we lose an independent member, we should have the chance to elect another independent candidate, as a result of a proper election.
        Mr. Forth: It is worse than that. If several members elected from a list resigned and there were not sufficient names on the list to fill the vacancies, would not another electoral embarrassment be in store for those who support such an electoral arrangement?
        Mr. Hughes: That is true, and we shall return to that subject, but, unless something very funny happens, I do not anticipate that we shall have a situation such as the one that we had in this place some years ago, when most of the Northern Ireland Members resigned and by-elections were held. Considering the crude politics of it, I believe that there would be pressure from the parties to ensure that large-scale resignations should not take place. Let us consider those perfectly proper issues.
        In the full submission that Liberal Democrat Members and representatives in London made to the Green Paper, we argued that the electoral system should follow three principles: fairness to all voters; real natural constituencies; and genuine voter choice. I would argue that the best way of achieving that—not the only way, not something that makes all the other options impossible—is to have the famous single transferable vote. I say that not because we, as a party, have become wedded to that system, picked off the shelf, irrespective of anything else—I believe that we have shown ourselves to be as pragmatic as others—but because all the evidence is that it produces the best choice for the voter, and the most accurate reflection of differences of view.
        If an election were held today, according to a proportional system, and if voters followed the voting patterns reflected in the results of the most recent general election, the Labour party would return 12 of the 25 members of the assembly and the other parties would return the remaining 13. Labour would not have a majority in the assembly: no one party would have a majority. When the GLC existed, there was always a three-way split in London politics. Happily, our party has grown; others—naming no names—have diminished more recently, but London has very rarely had a majority of the voters turning out for one party, so there has always been a balance. We therefore seek an electoral system that gives the most accurate balance—because then the system does not distort the conclusion—and voter choice.
        As was said in the previous debate, we strongly argue that an advantage of the single transferable vote system is that it allows the reflection of natural geographic communities, especially in outer boroughs. My hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who represent the borough of Sutton, and my hon. Friends who represent the boroughs of Richmond

        791
        and Kingston feel very strongly that their communities need to be represented. I strongly share that view. It would have been better, and it would have locked in more strongly people's commitment to the electoral process, if, for example, those parts of London that are Kent had seen themselves as one community, electing four, five or six members, who would then speak collectively, across the party divide, for the Kent part of London.
        As I have said, we support the proposition that it should be possible to choose between candidates in the same party. I pray in aid the support of the Institute for Public Policy and Research, which is more closely affiliated with the Labour party than others, for our argument that the best option is the single transferable vote. At the end of December 1997, it said in response to the paper on the Greater London authority:
        "We therefore recommend that the single transferable vote system be implemented in five 5-member constituencies. The advantages are that this would signal a commitment to a more inclusive style of politics, and should contribute to the emergence of an assembly which reflects the diversity of London's population."
        STV is used in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and we believe that it would be the best system for London.
        Because we are pragmatists, realists and do not always get what we want—some would argue that a pedigree in the Liberal party means getting used occasionally to not getting what one wants—we have, however, produced alternatives for the Committee to consider. If the Government are not willing to accept our first choice, we offer them a second one, in amendments Nos. 38 and 52, which we hope they will accept.
        In amendments Nos. 38 and 52, we suggest that those whom the Government call constituency members—people from the proposed 14 geographical areas, the boundaries for which the Minister has confirmed today—should be elected not by first past the post but by the alternative vote. We then suggest that that should be topped up, becoming a system that has recently become known as the alternative vote plus.
        The alternative vote plus has gained credibility since this Parliament began. As a result of its deliberations, the commission that the Government set up on electoral systems for this place has put on the table for public debate and consideration in the House—it must therefore be a valid proposition—a similar system for London, too. The alternative vote plus was recommended by the Jenkins commission in the autumn.
        I understand—it is obvious—that the Jenkins commission was set up too late to influence the Green Paper and the White Paper on London. It is therefore no criticism of the Government that they have not picked up its idea. However, I would be grateful if the Minister at least indicated that the Government do not rule out the idea that such a system has merit for London, too. I hope that that will find appeal, and that the Government will say that it is as good a system as any other. As one of the five people who represented the views of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats Members to the Jenkins commission, and having been sceptical about whether it would come up with an appealing system, I think that it has very cleverly and reasonably met hon. Members' objectives of constituency links and proportionality.
        792
        It is important—I want the Minister specifically to reply to this—to grasp the nettle of the open list rather than the closed list. The Government propose 11 members elected by lists. All our parties are beginning to ratchet up the process of choosing their representatives for such lists. I think that all our electors resent a little the fact that, in order to influence that process, one must be a member of a political party. Most people in London are not members of any political party. Indeed, with respect to us all, most people have no desire to be so. I do not blame them for that in the slightest.
        Members feel very strongly about individuals. One of the banes of our life in debating London government over recent months is that the press, because they think that it is what the public want, speculate far more about who will be in power in London than what they will do. The press spend far more time on who will be the candidates than on what their policies are, but the level of road charges and parking charges will be much more important to Londoners than who is running the city. The policies matter much more than the personalities, although obviously the two go together.
        8.45 pm
        People like to make a choice. If we present to Londoners a list chosen by our parties, however clever we think we may be, and if we do not give Londoners the chance to say, "I like your team, but I think that person is rubbish and should be at the bottom of the list", we will curtail the debate, the influence and the participation.
        Many people might vote because one of the people on the list is their mate, or their former local councillor or the person who led their borough council, or their former Member of Parliament, or someone whom they respect as running a big local business or charity, or someone to whom they can relate, such as a sports personality. However, if they cannot influence whether that person is at the top of the list or at the bottom, they might simply stay at home. I am at one with the Government in wanting to increase participation in elections, so that the result reflects the views and interests of as many people as possible.
        We have a preferred choice, which is an alternative to the Government's proposal and allows proportionality by the best system—the single transferable vote. If that is not acceptable, we have a fallback, but we have a keen desire to get the Government to agree to an open-list system, not a closed-list system.
        This is an important debate, not because it provides excitement for people who analyse electoral systems every time we debate representative government, but because if we want to allow independents to be elected, and members of parties such as the Green party to be committed to the election and to propose policies, and if we want to maximise the political and democratic input into London, we shall do that best by choosing the electoral process that maximises participation and voter choice. I hope that, by the end of the debate, we shall have moved further along that road, and that the Government, who have already moved a long way, will have moved a little further towards the best electoral system available.
        Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, the force of which

        793
        is to propose that all members of the Greater London assembly should be elected on the first-past-the-post system. Because of the way in which the amendments have been grouped, we shall seek to divide the Committee on amendments Nos. 10 and 11 at another time that is acceptable to the Committee.
        On Second Reading on 14 December last year, I pointed out, and it was not denied by the Government, that the Bill introduces what is essentially an experimental form of new government for our capital city. Because of London's national and international significance, it is crucial that the experiment should be made to work. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State was at pains to emphasise that he would take careful notice of the issues of concern raised then and subsequently, during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
        Notwithstanding our views about the composition of the assembly, which the Government do not accept, amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would insert into that massive experiment at least a method of electing the members of the new assembly that is tried and tested, and which can deliver accountable and transparent government.
        I listened with great care and even greater interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He explained his party's interest in electoral systems, which he proved this evening by proposing no fewer than four different systems for Londoners to experience. Because of the complexity that he and his party seek to introduce into the matter, we shall vote against the group of amendments that the hon. Gentleman moved. We believe strongly that Londoners need an electoral system for the assembly and also for the mayor—we shall discuss that tomorrow—that can deliver decisive and effective government for the capital.
        We are increasingly concerned by the steady step-by-step move away from the constituency basis of our democracy. We are concerned about the unrealistically large constituencies proposed by the Government for the constituency assembly members. Did we hear a change of heart from the Liberal Democrats on the question of open and closed lists? I rather think we did—well, perhaps not a change of heart, but a change in voting intention. However, the combination of large constituencies, proportional representation and the closed-list system represents a move away from the simple accountability and transparency of the first-past-the-post system, which has given the country strong, accountable and decisive administrations at local and national government level for so long.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady was not being unfair or unreasonable, but just so that there is no misunderstanding among those who read our debates, I should say that there is no change in the Liberal Democrats' position on the list system. During the famous debates before Christmas, our preference was always for open lists. In the end, we compromised and agreed that it was better to have closed lists than no proportional system for Europe. Therefore, our preferred system was then and is now one of open lists. We would have liked it for Europe and we hope that we will get it now.
        Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous explanation, but it will not sway me to support
        794
        his amendments, which will not surprise him, because no matter what he claims, they would move the government of London yet further from clear accountability and, as a result of their complexity, into incomprehensible confusion.
        However, it is unlikely that the Committee will accept the Liberal Democrats' amendments because there is much support on both sides for the first-past-the-post electoral system, and that is not surprising. For centuries, it has provided accountable government which has enabled the electorate not only to hire Governments but also, on occasion, as they did 20 months ago, most decisively to fire them. The first-past-the-post system ensures that the electorate know who should be held accountable for policy, and those elected are more responsive as a result—certainly afterwards.
        The first-past-the-post system also provides a direct line between the citizen and his or her elected member, whether of a council or Parliament. Of course it is the case that the Bill proposes the direct election, by the first-past-the-post system, of 14 assembly members, but they will be asked to represent enormous constituencies which bear no relation to existing constituency boundaries. To have to represent a constituency of between 300,000 and 400,000 people makes the job difficult and will certainly cause the 14 members to feel remote from their electors.
        The system provides transparent government because it delivers a clearly understood procedure whereby the elector casts a vote directly for the candidate of his or her choice. It provides straightforward government and, above all, it puts people, not parties, in charge of those elected to power.
        As I said, 14 members will be directly elected by the first-past-the-post system, but the remaining 11 of the so-called London members will be elected by a system of proportional representation from a closed party list.
        I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will explain whether he is concerned about the fact that that will create two classes of assembly members—the 14 members directly elected but rather remote, and the 11 selected by parties, not people.
        The Opposition's antipathy to closed lists is well known, as is that of many Labour Members. On 18 November, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) spoke for many of us on the issue of closed lists when he said:
        "If I get the sack from the people, so be it, but I would rather be sacked by the people than through the fiddling of a party list controlled by people who are almost unknown."—[Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 973–74.]
        The Government proposal for Londoners of two classes of assembly members by the combination of first past the post for 14 members and a form of proportional representation for the remaining 11 makes no contribution to accountability, transparency or, in particular, democratic principles.
        With regard to London members, the public will not be able to vote for named party candidates, although they will be able to do so for a named independent candidate, causing the anomaly which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, which will have to be thrashed out in Committee and some sort of solution found. People will

        795
        have to vote for a party when electing London members; the party will choose the order and the people will have no say in the matter.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the two amendments tabled by Conservative Members do not address the issue, and even though I accept that the right hon. Lady will not support us on the single transferable vote, does she share our view that we should pass amendments on open rather than closed lists, if we are to have a list system for parties? Will she and her colleagues at least join forces with us—in Committee and on Report—to vote for amendments providing open rather than closed lists?
        Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman asks me to commit to a process that will take some time. I am setting out our position on what form the election for the Greater London assembly should take. We are firmly for first past the post and we do not have much truck with the alternatives, at this stage anyway. Given that he has proposed so many alternatives, we shall have a rich opportunity to consider them all.
        Mr. Hughes: A last intervention?
        Mrs. Shephard: Yes, certainly.
        Mr. Hughes: I am always happy to offer a menu that might enlighten the right hon. Lady.
        There is one other matter. Has the right hon. Lady considered the fact that, if we keep the first-past-the-post system, her colleagues and her party are likely, in the present political climate, to suffer badly? If she has not considered that, will she add it to the list of alternatives? The first-past-the-post system was not a wow and a success for the Conservative party in Scotland or in Wales at the general election, and it did not appear to deliver huge electoral success in England either. I say this in all seriousness: has she reflected on the fact that it might be wise—if she wants her party and the 25 per cent. of voters who vote Tory to be represented fairly in London—to change her views now rather than be forced to change them after another electoral defeat?
        Mr. Forth: What a disgraceful suggestion.
        Mrs. Shephard: It is indeed an extraordinary suggestion. It reveals more about the hon. Gentleman and the way that he and his party operate—and, indeed, think—than he perhaps would have wished. I repeat that our principle is that electors should be able to vote for people, not parties, to influence the outcome of elections.
        I remind the hon. Gentleman that the system that he has proposed as his choice for the Government to consider this evening was condemned by the Jenkins commission on electoral reform. We believe that its findings have been kicked into touch by the Prime Minister—the Minister may tell us more about that—although it was set up by his Government. The commission said:
        "The Commission recommends that the second vote determining the allocation of Top Up members should allow the voter the choice of either a vote for the party or for an individual candidate from the lists put forward by parties. They should therefore be what are commonly called open rather than closed lists."
        796
        That charming hyperbole comes fittingly from its author.
        The plethora of voting systems and arrangements to be put in place will not help the clarity of the electoral system in London. We should reflect on the fact that Londoners will be asked to vote for their borough councillors—using the first-past-the-post system—every four years, and for the mayor and assembly every four years, but with a supplementary vote and additional-member systems of which the assembly system is a part. A variety of systems may be used if the Government accept the Liberal Democrat amendment.
        Mrs. Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposal that we should vote every year in London for our local authorities?
        Mrs. Shephard: I am coming to that. In the other three years, Londoners may be asked to vote for a third of their councillors annually, possibly under the first-past-the-post system or perhaps under an alternative system yet to be announced and subject to the result of a referendum—which may or may not take place before the next election—on the system proposed by the Jenkins commission. At the very least, the Government should pause before they compound the confusion that they are creating.
        The election proposals in the Bill diminish the accountability and transparency of the important new form of local government that is being set up in London. The diminution of accountability and transparency is more grave because it stems from a fresh start or experiment. Powers will be removed from the boroughs and a body will be created, the members of which will perforce be remote from the public whom they are elected to serve.
        In the name of good accountable government for London, I commend the amendments to the Committee and hope that it agrees to divide on them at the appropriate time.
        9 pm
        Mr. Martin Linton: I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I wish to speak against the amendments, which I hope will be resisted.
        The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is used to being a voice crying in the wilderness. For many years, he was the sole Liberal Democrat in London. He has now been joined by a few on the outer periphery, but he is still the only Liberal Democrat in inner London. Thus he will be used to the position in which he finds himself on the single transferable vote—the protagonist for a system in which nobody in this country has ever shown much interest. It is a British invention that has been exported, but has never been appreciated or adopted in its home country. Unlike many of our other inventions, that has happened for good reasons. It has been exported to Ireland and Malta, and the Australian Senate conducts its elections using that system, but it has found no firm foothold in any other country because it has enormous faults. Those become apparent when one looks at the experience of other countries.
        The first main fault of the single transferable vote system is that it sets candidates of the same party at each other's throats. That becomes obvious when one studies Irish elections. It is in the interests of a Fianna Fail

        797
        candidate not only to oppose Fine Gael candidates in the same constituency, but to poach votes from other Fianna Fail candidates—allegedly on the same ticket. Party colleagues will thus take a position on local issues designed to persuade Fianna Fail supporters to put them rather than party colleagues at the top of their list. It may be a form of democracy, but it promotes internecine warfare within political parties. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats wish that on the rest of us, but we can see the system's failings.
        The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says that the system gives choice within parties, and quotes the example of voters who might want to choose more women candidates or trade unionists, or perhaps a friend of theirs. If that were the only effect of STV it might have something to recommend it, but we know what happens in practice. The effect of the choice given to voters through STV, whereby essentially one can vote for only one candidate at a time in a multi-member constituency, is that people choose the candidate whose view is closest to theirs. The result is that candidates on the left or right wing of a party do better than those in the centre because they attract votes from supporters of other political parties. The effect of that can be seen all too clearly in Ireland.
        Thus the second main failing of the STV system is that it blurs the distinction between political parties. What is the ideological distinction between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael? In the United States, the primary system blurs the distinction between political parties because it has the effect of turning a first-past-the-post system into another form of STV. People appear to be given a choice between parties and, within parties, between candidates. The inevitable result is that, within parties, there is competition between candidates of the same party and opposition parties attempt to steal votes from the other parties.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman has had a long interest in this subject, and he makes some good points. May I put the counter argument? There is sometimes a benefit to the elector in candidates of the same party identifying themselves with local issues. It roots candidates within the local community, and prevents them from becoming too abstract.
        The hon. Gentleman must be wary of taking Ireland as a example of where the differences are small. Unlike in most other European Union member countries, the party divide in Ireland has traditionally not been a left-right divide: it is based on nationalism and republicanism. The differences often have more to do with personality than with political philosophy. The other European countries that have proportional systems have not had that same confusion of party caused by a proportional electoral system.
        Mr. Linton: It is true that the experience of Malta, which is the only other European country with that system, is very different. It has a much higher turnout. However, Maltese politics are a completely different kettle of fish, and family loyalties play an enormous part—even more so than in Ireland. Unfortunately, there are not enough exemplars of STV in Europe to show what would happen in this country, but they can warn us of the consequences.
        798
        The hon. Gentleman's comments about the experience in Ireland bring me to the third main failing of STV. The failing of many proportional systems is that they take Members of Parliament away from direct reliance on their voters and make them less involved with their constituency. Under some systems, there are no recognisable constituencies. The fault of STV lies in the other direction. It is difficult to believe that one could go too far in that direction, but one has only to look at Irish politics to see that many TDs are in their constituencies for a majority of the time and pay only occasional visits to the Dail in Dublin.
        It is ridiculous that a TD for Sligo spent his whole time campaigning for an international airport in his constituency. As a monument to STV, there is now an international airport in County Sligo. STV encourages an enormously parochial approach to politics, so its failing is the reverse of most other PR systems. Nevertheless, it is a failing. One of the most important aspects of an electoral system should be that it establishes representatives who have solid roots in the constituency, and enables those representatives to devote time to what they are elected to do, which is to represent their constituencies in Parliament and to take part in decisions about the running of the country. STV has failed to do that, at least in Ireland.
        We should resist the siren voices of the Liberal Democrats, who alone have held the STV flag aloft. The STV system has always been rejected in this country for good reasons. The Scottish convention considered it, but rejected it and adopted an additional member system. The Welsh also adopted an additional member system. I am sure that, if we had had a convention in London, we would have gone through the same arguments and come to the same conclusion. Indeed, the Green Paper tried to reproduce that process, and the same arguments were deployed by the Liberal Democrats and others. The result was the same as it was in Scotland and Wales, and it was decided that London should elect a mayor by a majoritarian system, but that the representatives should be elected by AMS.
        I hear what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey says about leaving the door open to alternative vote plus. Powerful arguments will be made about that when the time comes, because it is a more recent development than the Green Paper or the White Paper. The Minister should examine that system, because it would have a great advantage. For example, London voters who vote Labour for their constituency representative in the assembly would not have to think about voting in another way in the second election. There would be no need for the tactical voting that bedevils our present system.
        The most important thing is that we adopt the basic system proposed in the Bill. I have no problem with the closed list, and we must remember that every London voter will have a choice of candidates in his or her local constituency from whom to elect a local representative. The purpose of the 11 top-up members is to correct the anomalies created, inevitably, by any kind of majoritarian system, so that the representation across the whole of London more accurately reflects the parties' strength. It would be confusing one with the other if we tried to transport the choice of candidate into the other system; it would simply detract from what is essentially a correcting mechanism that requires a choice of party. Independents, of course, will still be able to stand.

        799
        The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) holds on fast to the first-past-the-post system. She overlooks the fact that the mayor will be elected by a majoritarian system; not by first past the post, but a better majoritarian system—the supplementary vote, which will remove the need for tactical voting and will ensure that the mayor has the support of a majority of the voters, or very close to a majority. We will not run the risk of elections where three candidates split the vote and one wins by gaining 36 per cent. I do not understand why the Conservatives should hang on to such a system when a far-superior majoritarian system is on offer.
        The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk said that the constituency members should also be elected by first past the post, but she fails to understand that an assembly elected in the same way as the mayor would provide no checks whatever on the mayor. The mayor is elected by a majoritarian system. It would be pointless to reproduce such a system for the assembly. We would end up with a mayor of one party and an assembly almost entirely composed of members of the same party, which would serve little purpose. The whole idea of having an assembly is that the mayor has executive power, but that scrutiny and checks are exercised by an assembly intended to more closely reflect the political make-up of the voters.
        The voters will still have complete power to hire or fire the executive through the mayoral elections, by a majoritarian system. What we do not need is to reproduce all the failings of our present voting system twice over by having the constituencies elected entirely by first past the post.
        Mr. Forth: What we have here, I fear, is a muddle produced by the Government's need to rush into these matters without having thought them through properly. Given all the Green Papers and the other documents that we have had—to give the Government some credit—one might have thought that we would have had a better result. Regrettably, that is not so.
        I hope that we will have a chance in Committee to debate the subject of the directly elected mayor, because I am still waiting to hear, not only from the Government, but from my own colleagues, what that is all about and how it will work—more of which, perhaps, later. The difficulty arises from the combination of the election of the mayor and the assembly with the completely experimental electoral approach, which fails on almost every count of desirability.
        The first failure is that of the list, which will be new and relatively incomprehensible to most of the voters in London. It has all the other disadvantages of the closed list, which we need not rehearse yet again. However, we have just heard from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—almost for the first time in the Chamber—a Labour Member of Parliament who is prepared to endorse and support the closed list. That has perhaps made this evening worth while, if nothing else has. It will go down as a little moment of history in our Committee.
        9.15 pm
        The difficulty is that the experimental new system that produces the constituency members will fail another of the basic tests of electoral desirability, because the
        800
        constituencies will be so big and so removed from the voters that there will be very little connection between the electors and the elected. Voters will have little connection with the London members on the list and I would argue that they can hardly be expected to have much connection with the constituency members.
        The constituencies will be rather akin to European constituencies, and how many of us would claim that voters have any connection—intimate, knowledgeable or otherwise—with their Members of the European Parliament? That, however, is the system that is proposed for the representation of London voters in vital strategic decisions. Before we even get off first base, there are real problems in the Government's approach, because the system in no way measures up to what one would expect of a proper electoral system.
        It gets worse, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said, when the members elected by this rather bizarre scheme arrive in the assembly chamber, they will inevitably fall into two classes: those who will claim an association with their constituencies, however large and amorphous, and those on the list, who will have some claim to represent the whole of London, but only through the prism or viewfinder of their party. We will have a peculiar assembly consisting of members elected in different ways and, inevitably, with different perspectives and a different status.
        Worse even than that, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, there will be no majority in the assembly. Some may argue—the hon. Gentleman implied this—that it will be a virtue if the assembly is not dominated by any one political party. I have some experience of a democratic institution without a stable majority. I make a confession to this secret and private meeting that for five years, I was an elected Member of the European Parliament. I do not want that to be held unduly against me, and I have been trying to live it down ever since.

        That experience taught me several lessons. The one that is relevant to this debate is that the institution suffers from not having an in-built party majority. We have seen an example of that very recently, I submit. The problem is that majorities vary, not only from issue to issue, but from time to time; there is no continuity of purpose or thrust in the institution so it loses its way on almost every issue.
        The great danger is that the assembly will suffer the same fate. In my view, it is likely to be ineffective because of the proposed system of election and the fact that it will almost certainly not have a party majority, especially when it is placed in an adversarial position with the mayor, as the hon. Member for Battersea said, and has to provide a check and balance.
        I fear that the assembly will be politically less effective as a result of not having a party majority and that a skilful mayor will be able to pick off issues and play members off against one another, thus, at worst, rendering the assembly completely ineffective as a check or balance on the mayor's activities. Surely, on any analysis, that would be a denial of the Government's intentions—as I understand them from all their arguments—for the authority as a whole and for the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. We seem to be getting the worst of all possible worlds in terms of transparency, comprehensibility to the people of London, accountability

        801
        or predictability of the outcome of elections. On none of the normal tests that one would wish to apply to an electoral system or a political decision-making body does the system measure up. That is a powerful indictment of the Bill.
        I do not believe that the multiplicity of solutions offered by the Liberal Democrats would repair any of the Bill's grievous shortcomings, and that is why I support my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk. Whatever the shortcomings of first past the post—and it has some—it is at least understandable to the people of the UK and London. It provides predictability, stability and continuity that will be extremely desirable, especially during the early experimental phase of the new form of government for London.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold the view that the good old first-past-the-post system is a better way to select someone to represent a constituency than the alternative vote system? No one can argue that AV is complicated, and it provides a member for the constituency who commands the support of a majority of the voters. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that some Members have been elected to the House with a share of the vote as low as 25 or 26 per cent. in recent years.
        Mr. Forth: I understand that argument, but I have never entirely gone along with it. The idea that someone has the support of the majority once votes have been moved around, shuffled and prioritised does not hold good. The strength of the first-past-the-post system is that everyone understands it clearly, and they accept good times and bad.
        The hon. Gentleman—uncharacteristically—suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk that the Conservatives should favour whatever electoral system we imagine might benefit us most in some future political environment. That is a shoddy argument, and it was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. It appears that the hon. Member for Battersea wishes to come to his rescue.
        Mr. Linton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Conservative party does not use the first-past-the-post system to elect its leader?
        Mr. Forth: That is a very good question, and I should like to hear the answer to it myself. I certainly favour a first-past-the-post system for that election, but I lost the argument on that. It may be that my party will live rather to regret the way in which it decided to go. We shall unfortunately learn that only at some time in the very distant future, so we need not concern ourselves with it for some considerable time; the hon. Member for Battersea should not hold his breath.
        Mr. Hughes: I sensed something of a recovery operation in the last few words from the right hon. Gentleman.
        When I intervened on the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), I was not arguing that the Conservative party should adopt the system that most benefits it. My argument was that we should have a system under which if 25 per cent. of Londoners vote
        802
        Conservative, a fair representation results. I am not bothered about what the Tory party thinks, but I am bothered about what the electors think.
        Mr. Forth: That is a familiar argument, and it is, in its way, perfectly fair. My difficulty with that analysis is that it is always dangerous to try to make judgments about electoral systems on the basis of what one imagines people will do when the election takes place. We all know that political opinion is often extremely volatile, and that much can change in a short time. To advocate a system that may reflect what we would like—or, even, what we would fear—is a dangerous approach.
        From my experience in the political business, I do not detect that the electors necessarily feel particularly cheated, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not think that he has heard any great complaints yet from the Conservative party, or even from voters in Scotland and Wales that they feel cheated because they do not have any Conservative Members of Parliament. Even if that were the case, it is one of the prices that one pays for the many other benefits of a first-past-the-post electoral system. On balance, these things are judgments and our judgment—that of the majority of Conservative Members—is that first past the post has many more virtues than vices and shortcomings.
        Mr. Hughes: This is an important argument, but I shall be brief as I do not want to delay other hon. Members. There are two remaining snags in the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. First, he is wrong to say that people do not resent the fact that they are carved out of representation, although a large number of them voted for a certain party. For example, in Liverpool and other big cities where there has been no Conservative representation for years, people resent the fact that their voice is not being heard. It is strange to argue that there is not a large voice and that people are therefore content not to have representation. For example, if Tory voters in Scotland where there are no Tory Members are content, it says little for the representation that they had before.
        Mr. Forth: That is a matter for them.
        I must reinforce an argument that emerged during an earlier brief exchange with the hon. Gentleman and I hope that we will not forget or lose sight of this rather worrisome aspect. I hope that the Minister will take up this point and tell us if we have it wrong or if there is something that we should know that is not obvious from reading the Bill.
        The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey advocates individual candidates and I am sure that most hon. Members want some to come through the process and take their place in the assembly, as I do. Clause 11 concerns the filling of vacancies and states that if the office of a London member becomes vacant,
        "If the London member was returned as an individual candidate…the vacancy, shall remain unfilled",
        which seems totally unsatisfactory from almost every point of view. I hope that I can be reassured that I am wrong and that the Minister will tell me that vacancies will not remain unfilled. If they do, people will be unrepresented and the assembly will miss the opportunity to reflect possible changes in political opinion.

        803
        The Bill then goes on to state that, where there is a list, if someone resigns or dies the next person on the list will move up. I suppose that we must accept that as an almost inevitable result of the list approach. However, it gives rise to an interesting question, which has always fascinated me and to which even the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey did not seem to have an answer.
        This possibility should not be dismissed as totally unlikely. If we have a party list, the top five candidates are elected and a series of mishaps or resignations—even a mass resignation—follows, there may well come a time when no one is left on the list to fill successive vacancies during the term of the assembly. We would then be in the peculiar and anomalous position of having a series of unfilled vacancies.
        To reduce the argument to absurdity, and its logical conclusion, one might find that there were an increasing number of unfilled vacancies in the assembly. To the extent to which that is at least a possibility, I hope that the Minister will find some way to reassure us that he has some magical solution. Reading clause 11 of the Bill, one is driven to the conclusion that it is a possibility and it is not reassuring for the people of London, who are being dragged into this experiment by the Government when only 70 per cent. of one third of them turned out to support it—underwhelming support indeed.
        There is still a lot of work to be done. I hope that it goes without saying that I support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk. We need much more explanation from the Government before Conservatives will be even half convinced that this is any sort of way to go ahead with this new approach to the governance of Greater London.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. McNulty: I hope that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) will forgive me if I do not dwell on her amendments, not least because, as she said, they are fairly meaningless because of the way in which they have been bunched. They would leave us with 14 directly elected members in an assembly of 14; it may be more than that. I am sure that the way that they are bunched does not reflect what was intended.
        I shall not ask to be forgiven for saying that I shall ignore the sad ramblings of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). They were irrelevant, so there is nothing to respond to.
        I shall concentrate on what I would call, without reservation and without intending to offend, the dogmatic self-interest wrapped in treacle of the Liberal Democrats. They did not say what the assembly is for, what it is trying to do, what its strategic functions are, and then ask what would be the most appropriate electoral system. Instead, we heard the usual rant about how single transferable vote is as pure as the driven snow and how we must try to fit everything else around it. That is a woeful disservice to London.
        If STV does not work, we are offered a menu which says, "If you don't like that, what about AV plus? If you don't like that, how about this?" Everything on this stinky little menu is unpalatable and unworthy. We are talking
        804
        about something as fundamental and important in London's development as the establishment of the Greater London assembly while the Liberal Democrats hold another seminar on their buddhist mantra of electoral reform. Given what London needs, there is no justification for that.
        The Liberal Democrats are not alone. The Electoral Reform Society's little ditty runs in similar vain. It says that STV is wonderful because
        "it will extend voter choice".
        It has not anywhere where it has been implemented. The pure STV system does not work anywhere.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: What about Ireland?
        Mr. McNulty: I shall come back to Ireland in a moment.
        The ERS states that STV would
        "ensure the accountability of all Assembly Members as all would be elected on the basis of their personal votes".
        That is facile and says nothing. I got 32,000 personal votes; I dare anyone to say that I got less. I know that they were not; others do not. That means nothing. The ERS says:
        "STV would produce a broadly proportional Assembly without the need for two categories of Assembly Member."
        That is not proven, not least because of the Irish context.
        This may sound daft but I fully support STV in the Irish Republic because it is appropriate to its body politic. Outside Dublin, Ireland is a disparate, rural land. The quota for seats is no more than 7,500. Within the multi-member seats, there is county bias at each end of a constituency. That is appropriate because it means that a sparse rural community will be served well in the Dail by its Teachta Dala.
        It is the same in Dublin because despite its spread, it is a morass of little villages and communities that is served by STV in a way that, in an Irish context, first past the post would not. However, STV is not, in an Irish context, proportional. As the Irish electorate becomes more and more volatile, they get TDs who do not have the quota and get in because they just managed to survive in last place. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) told the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—I suppose that I have to say that—that 25 or 26 per cent. can be sufficient to get a candidate elected in a diverse first-past-the-post constituency. That happens but it happens with increasing regularity in the pure STV system that he is so fond of in the Irish Republic. More and more often, in every constituency johnny-last-in gets elected, with no quota at all, but—this might sound familiar—as the repository of every protest vote scraped up so that he can stay in. That brings us back to Liberal self-interest, which is what the amendment is all about.
        During the previous debate, the point was well made that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the Greater London assembly reflects the inclusivity of London's rich and varied society. That will not, as if by magic, happen if we use STV, AV-plus or any other proportional system; nor will it happen if we utilise the system set out in the Bill. It happens—here comes the standard Liberal cop-out—where political parties have the will to make sure that it happens. It is incumbent on all the parties in

        805
        London to ensure that their candidates for both the 14 directly elected seats and the 11 list seats reflect the gender balance and the rich cultural diversity of London.
        The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggested that using STV will ensure that a trade unionist will be elected here, a woman there and a black or Asian candidate somewhere else. That is facile and abject nonsense that simply hides the self-interest that is always nakedly present beneath the Liberal Democrats piety, as they deliver the latest sermon on STV from the pulpit. It is complete nonsense.
        Electoral systems have to be horses for courses. If the additional member system or the hybrid version is appropriate for the London assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, that is fine by us, because we start by asking, "What are those bodies for?" and then ask, "What electoral system will best reflect those functions and serve the community?" We do not aim for the purity of the Liberal Democrats' approach.
        I am polite, so I tried not to snigger when the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggested that AV-plus has new legitimacy because of the Jenkins commission report. I have to say, with the best will in the world, that AV-plus, to paraphrase one of the hon. Gentleman's ex-colleagues, will probably be strangled at birth, because of Jenkins; it will die before it ever rears its ugly head because of Jenkins. Despite the report's sweet, literary style, probably resulting from its having been written in a haze of claret, the Jenkins commission got it wrong.
        I am not a first-past-the-post Luddite, either in a London context or more broadly; nor am I an STV or PR evangelist. Show me what the architecture of government is about and what it is supposed to represent, then tell me how the electoral system best enables the community to get what it needs from that architecture. You have not done that—sorry, Mr. Martin: the Liberal Democrats have not done that. The Conservatives certainly have not done it either, but we shall put that down to the selection of amendments. We could probably have had a more interesting debate on their amendments—they would still have been wrong, but we could have gone into greater detail had the Conservatives managed to table their amendments in proper order.
        The Liberal Democrats have not started with the 14-11 split of the constituencies as they stand in the Bill, nor by telling us how that is wrong within the context of what is sought from the assembly, but that is the question they have to answer. We do not want boy scout stuff about PR from the Liberal Democrats, nor Luddite stuff about first past the post from the Conservatives. They have not told us how the two aspects—the architecture and the electoral system—marry together.
        This is not a little debating chamber where someone can get good marks and go to the top of the class—that is the Liberal conference, which is held only once a year. The issues at stake are real: after the elections, the Greater London authority will have a real impact on the people of London, whom we all purport to represent, so mess with it at your peril. We do not want the GLA to suffer because the high priests of PR or the Luddites want to play games.
        What is in the Bill is right and we must stick with it. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) to close the door completely and not to entertain any alternative electoral system. This is London's reality and we should get on with it.
        Mrs. Lait: The last time I followed the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) in this place we were discussing commerce. On this occasion, I suggest that the Government Whips might like to take the hon. Gentleman aside to explain that, although we shall vote on the Conservative amendments later, he is perfectly free to discuss them now. However, I would hate to give the hon. Gentleman a lesson on procedure.
        Before I speak in support of the Conservative amendments, I have a few words for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who was rather hopeful that the Leader of the Opposition might be coming around to the hon. Gentleman's point of view regarding electoral reform. However, I have a copy of a speech that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave tonight and the hon. Gentleman might appreciate hearing a quote from it. It states:
        "Another threat from Labour's programme of constitutional change is that the link between the governed and the government, which has been an historic strength of our institutions, could be severed.
        Our first-past-the-post voting system provides that link because the British people know who is responsible for new laws and taxes, and they do something about it if they do not like them—they can kick the government out."
        I am sorry, but I must point out that the hon. Gentleman's hopes have been dashed. I left the House at the last election as a result of the will of the people and was rapidly returned as a result of our first-past-the-post system. That would not have happened if we had operated any form of proportional representation system. Therefore, I have a definite personal interest in maintaining first past the post. I have long envisaged many problems with proportional representation, one of which was mentioned earlier this evening.
        I would like the Minister to respond to some specific points. We oppose the idea of the additional member—or London member in the context of the Bill. Given that European Union citizens who are resident in London will be eligible to vote, could one of them stand for election to the London assembly? The Minister is nodding assent, so we can add that to the list of potential representative groups suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. We look forward to seeing European citizens representing Londoners in the assembly.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke about his experiences in the European Parliament. One result of the list system in the European Parliament is that someone very prominent heads the list in order to give some identity to the other faceless characters on the list who have been chosen by the party. When the elections are over, the prominent person disappears and everyone else moves up one place. In that way the real leader of the group in Parliament emerges and Members from the bottom of the list enter Parliament. Unless the Bill is amended, I assume that that could happen in this case.
        I do not plan to serve on the Committee that will consider the Bill—that is a source of great sadness to me, but I am not volunteering my services. However, some technical questions must be answered before anyone—particularly the people of London who will have to work with it—can make a sensible judgment about the value of the system. Anyone in Bromley who talks to me about this subject—I must admit that it is not a topic of

        807
        conversation on an hourly or daily basis—cannot comprehend other than voting for the first-past-the-post system. The people of Bromley do not like any form of proportional representation, and I agree with them.
        9.45 pm
        Mr. Raynsford: This has been an interesting debate, which concluded with a rather sad insight into the point of view of the electors of Bromley, who, according to their representative, are incapable of considering any possible change in the electoral system. I think more highly of the Bromley electorate, which I am sure is interested in possible alternatives to systems that have been tried for years.
        I reassure the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that under this country's local government electoral law it is possible for a European citizen resident in London—residence in London is essential—to vote in local elections and to stand for election to local government. That provision will not change for elections to the Greater London authority.
        The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) opened the debate by expressing a reasonable concern that the new system of government should work. We accept that it is innovative. We are committed to ensuring that it works. She talked about the need for decisive and effective government, and we are determined to achieve that. The mayor will be elected by a system that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) described as a superior majoritarian system that will guarantee a clear majority and a decisive mandate.
        The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk expressed concern about the departure from constituency representation. However, we are ensuring a strong, but not exclusive, constituency element in the new framework. As she knows, there will be 14 members representing constituencies. There will be other members, but a strong constituency element will remain, which we think is right.
        The right hon. Lady argued for first past the post, essentially on two grounds: the ability of the electorate to hire and fire the authority or government and the need for a clear constituency link. I have already established that we shall have a clear constituency link. On hiring and firing, the mayor will be the executive. The supplementary vote system will enable the electorate decisively to reject a mayor whom they do not want to keep in place and, conversely, to elect with a good majority a mayor in whom they have confidence. That will in no way interrupt the process of hiring and firing; it will ensure accountability, which is the right hon. Lady's objective.
        The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) seemed semi-detached on this issue. I fear that during the proceedings we shall discover a suspicion on his part even about having a mayor, which the rest of his party now believes is a good idea. I look forward to hearing his views on that. He expressed concern about having two classes of member: a constituency member and a London-wide member. He obviously is not familiar with the electoral systems in many American cities where some members are elected at large, to use the American term, and others are elected to represent constituencies.
        808
        That is done for good reasons similar to those that we have established here—we want to ensure that there are people who can take a wide view and not simply focus on parochial issues.
        I remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I did the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, that the fact that there is not a majority on the assembly will not in any way hinder its effectiveness because the assembly is not the executive. The mayor is the executive and, by definition, the mayor will always have a majority because he or she will be elected under a majoritarian system.
        The amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk would remove the proportional element of the voting system that we have devised for the assembly. The GLA's purpose is to represent and promote the views and interests of all Londoners. It can best do that if the assembly is composed of members whose interests and concerns reflect those of the electorate as a whole. The additional member system that we have adopted will encourage that and allow it to happen.
        The first-past-the-post system favoured by Conservative Members could easily leave whole communities or viewpoints unrepresented because they are scattered through London and not concentrated in any one of the new electoral areas that will return directly elected assembly members. The list system will give those people a hope of having a say in London's government, which we believe is right. We cannot accept the Conservative amendments and I invite the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk to withdraw them.
        I turn now to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I fear that he is beginning to take what might be described as an anorak approach to politics. The hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments suggesting different voting systems. It is difficult to be altogether sure what he really wants. Is it AV or AV-plus? Is it STV? Is it open or semi-open lists? Is it the Belgian or the d'Hondt formula? Is it single or multi-member constituencies? By way of contrast to this plethora of interesting and obscure formulas, the Government's position on how to elect the assembly is consistent and clear.
        We set out clear proposals in our White Paper for assembly elections to be held under the additional member system, using first past the post for the constituency elections. This is the system adopted for elections in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. It is the system set out in the White Paper, which was well known to Londoners when they voted in the referendum; and it is the system that we intend to deliver.
        Mr. Forth: Before the Minister concludes his remarks, is he going to give me even a minuscule answer to the questions that I asked about unfilled vacancies? Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I think that there is a problem in this regard, and the Committee would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister.
        Mr. Raynsford: Those matters are dealt with in clause 11, which we are not considering tonight. I shall come to them when we debate clause 11 in Committee,

        809
        and will thus avoid being out of order this evening. I shall certainly ensure that the right hon. Gentleman gets a full answer.
        Mr. Forth: But not now.
        Mr. Raynsford: No; I would give a full answer now were it not out of order to do so.
        The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey welcomed the Government's openness to reform. He regretted the lack of a consultative group to consider the electoral system in London, but acknowledged that there had been consultation on the Green Paper. Indeed, I well recall speaking to him during the consultation period when we listened carefully to his views and those of his colleagues. I appreciate his recognition of our decision, following the consultation, to operate a proportional system which should allow proper representation of London's diverse areas and communities. I hope that he will not be too disappointed that we do not accept his amendment, which would take us to the wilder shores of anorakism.
        The additional member system will allow a wide range of interests and points of view to be represented. It combines a Londonwide list element, to ensure that the assembly has a strategic citywide focus, with representation from all parts of London. It is likely to deliver broadly proportional outcomes. Of course there can be debates about the intricacies of any electoral system. If the Liberal Democrats had their way, those debates would be interminable. What we are proposing is a balanced system for electing the assembly, which will deliver a body that represents London's interests. I see no reason to change our proposals.
        I am not convinced that the Liberal Democrats' plans to replace our proposals for a blend of constituency and Londonwide representation with multi-member constituencies would be in London's best interest. Under our proposals, all parts of London will be represented in the assembly, working to ensure that a wide range of viewpoints from across London has a chance to be expressed. In addition, we are proposing a Londonwide component for the assembly elections, which is essential if the assembly is to have a strategic, Londonwide perspective.
        If we were to adopt multi-member constituencies, the balance would be lost. There would be members for north London and some members from the south-west, but no overall Londonwide dimension. It would be necessary for the Local Government Commission to conduct a review of the constituencies and make further recommendations to the Secretary of State. That would entirely nullify all its work, which has led to the announcement that I made earlier this afternoon about the constituencies that will apply. It would also risk delaying the first GLA elections. We therefore believe that there is no case for reopening the issue.
        On the specific proposals for STV and AV, I am unconvinced by the case made out by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The main argument advanced in favour of these systems is that they enhance voter choice because voters are able to rank candidates from different parties in order of preference. The AV-plus system was recommended by the Jenkins committee, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However,
        810
        as he recognised, different systems can be adopted for different bodies. There is no reason why we should adopt the same system for different tiers of government. What Jenkins may believe is right for Westminster, he would not necessarily believe was right for other tiers of government in Scotland, Wales or London. The additional member system will give voters wide choice. A London voter will be able to vote for both a constituency candidate and a party or independent on a Londonwide basis. He or she need not choose the same party in the constituency and on the list; in my view, that represents a real choice.
        Moreover, the single transferable vote would inevitably require very large constituencies—with, possibly, a million electors in each one, on the basis of the five constituencies that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned, which will not necessarily provide a good and natural area and will not necessarily make it easy for electors to identify with their candidates. If we want to have representatives who are familiar with the area and accessible to the electorate, I am not sure that a constituency with an electorate of a million voters is necessarily the right way to do it.
        As my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea and for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) emphasised, STV may sound nice in the snow-white Liberal presentation, but the reality of STV as practised in certain parts of the world is very different. It may be a recipe for skulduggery and all sorts of malpractice that we do not want introduced into the political system. My hon. Friends the Members for Battersea and for Harrow, East made a forceful case for avoiding anything to do with the STV system.
        On the issue of closed lists, I do not accept the argument that parties, rather than voters, will choose the 11 additional members. The order in which candidates appear on the list may well influence the voter's choice of party. Those lists will be accessible to voters in every polling station, and voters will pay attention to the identity of the leading personalities on the list.
        The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has tabled a series of amendments that would alter the method by which list members are elected. If those amendments were passed, voters would vote, not for a party or individual candidate, but for individual candidates on the party list—or, in the case of amendment No. 41, either an individual on the list or the party as a whole. That matter has recently been the subject of a protracted debate in another place, and I do not propose to re-open those arguments in detail today.
        I shall conclude by making four key points. First, our proposals for electing the assembly were set out in the White Paper and were well publicised before Londoners went to the polls in the referendum of May 1998. I do not believe that those who argue that the Government's position on this issue is undemocratic are on secure ground.
        Secondly, the system that we propose is entirely consistent with legislation recently approved by Parliament for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. It would be odd if, having so recently agreed a system for those two organisations, we were to announce that we had to change the system because it was unsatisfactory for London.
        Thirdly, the charge is often made that closed lists mean that voters can no longer vote for an individual, but, as I have stressed, the list is only one element, and voters in

        811
        every part of London will have an individual constituency in which they can vote on a first-past-the-post basis for their representative in that constituency. It is a balanced system, which provides the voter with a high degree of choice, enabling them to vote for both the constituency candidate and the party.
        Finally, with the open-list system, which the Liberal Democrats are proposing, there is a real risk that elections would become phenomenally complex and confusing, and we do not intend to have that.
        The proposals that the Government have brought before the House are clear and consistent. They will deliver a proportional assembly, which combines a Londonwide perspective with geographical representation from all parts of London. They give voters genuine choice. They are relatively simple for electors and administrators to operate—a significant advantage over some of the alternatives proposed today. With that in mind, I ask the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to withdraw their amendments.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I have quite a few seconds left in which to speak. The Minister is obviously not yet persuaded. We propose a system that produces one type of assembly member; he wants two. We propose a system that has a more representative assembly member; his system has a less representative one. We want open lists; he wants closed lists. We believe that the case is made, and we should like to press amendment No. 19 to the vote. We believe that we are right.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 44, Noes 461.

        Division No. 39]

        [9.59 pm

        AYES

        Allan, Richard

        Livsey, Richard

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

        Brake, Tom

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Moore, Michael

        Breed, Colin

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Oaten, Mark

        Burnett, John

        Öpik, Lembit

        Burstow, Paul

        Rendel, David

        Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Chidgey, David

        Sanders, Adrian

        Cotter, Brian

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

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Swinney, John

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Tyler, Paul

        Gorrie, Donald

        Wallace, James

        Hancock, Mike

        Webb, Andrew

        Harris, Dr Evan

        Welsh, Andrew

        Harvey, Nick

        Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Willis, Phil

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Keetch, Paul

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

        Mr. Andrew Stunell and

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Mr. Don Foster

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Allen, Graham

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Amess, David

        Ainger, Nick

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Alexander, Douglas

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        812

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Coleman, Iain

        Ashton, Joe

        Collins, Tim

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Colman, Tony

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Colvin, Michael

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Connarty, Michael

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Austin, John

        Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

        Banks, Tony

        Cooper, Yvette

        Barnes, Harry

        Corbett, Robin

        Barron, Kevin

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Battle, John

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Bayley, Hugh

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Cousins, Jim

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Cran, James

        Beggs, Roy

        Cranston, Ross

        Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Cummings, John

        Benton, Joe

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Bercow, John

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Dalyell, Tam

        Berry, Roger

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Betts, Clive

        Darvill, Keith

        Blackman, Liz

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Blizzard, Bob

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Boateng, Paul

        Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

        Borrow, David

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Boswell, Tim

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Day, Stephen

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Denham, John

        Brazier, Julian

        Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Dismore, Andrew

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Dobbin, Jim

        Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Doran, Frank

        Browne, Desmond

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Dowd, Jim

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Drew, David

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Burden, Richard

        Duncan, Alan

        Burgon, Colin

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Burns, Simon

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Caborn, Richard

        Edwards, Huw

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Efford, Clive

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Etherington, Bill

        Canavan, Dennis

        Evans, Nigel

        Caplin, Ivor

        Faber, David

        Casale, Roger

        Fallon, Michael

        Cash, William

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Caton, Martin

        Fisher, Mark

        Cawsey, Ian

        Fitzsimons, Lorna

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Flight, Howard

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Flint, Caroline

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Flynn, Paul

        Chope, Christopher

        Follett, Barbara

        Clapham, Michael

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Clappison, James

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Foulkes, George

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Galbraith, Sam

        Clelland, David

        Gale, Roger

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Galloway, George

        Clwyd, Ann

        Gapes, Mike

        Coaker, Vernon

        Gardiner, Barry

        Garnier, Edward

        Gerrard, Neil

        Gibb, Nick

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Gill, Christopher

        813

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Kelly, Ms Ruth

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Kemp, Fraser

        Godsiff, Roger

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Goggins, Paul

        Key, Robert

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Khabra, Piara S

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Kidney, David

        Gray, James

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Green, Damian

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Greenway, John

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Kingham, Ms Tess

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Grocott, Bruce

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Grogan, John

        Lansley, Andrew

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Gunnell, John

        Laxton, Bob

        Hain, Peter

        Leigh, Edward

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Lepper, David

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Leslie, Christopher

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Levitt, Tom

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Hammond, Philip

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Hayes, John

        Lidington, David

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Linton, Martin

        Heald, Oliver

        Livingstone, Ken

        Healey, John

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Lock, David

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Luff, Peter

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Heppell, John

        McAllion, John

        Hesford, Stephen

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        McCabe, Steve

        Hill, Keith

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Hinchliffe, David

        McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Hoey, Kate

        Macdonald, Calum

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        McDonnell, John

        Home Robertson, John

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Hope, Phil

        McIsaac, Shona

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Horam, John

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        McNulty, Tony

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Howells, Dr Kim

        McWalter, Tony

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        McWilliam, John

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Madel, Sir David

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Hunter, Andrew

        Malins, Humfrey

        Hurst, Alan

        Mallaber. Judy

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Illsley, Eric

        Marek, Dr John

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Jamieson, David

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Martlew, Eric

        Jenkins, Brian

        Mates, Michael

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Meale, Alan

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Merron, Gillian

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Michael, Alun

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Miller, Andrew

        Jowell, Ms Tessa

        Mitchell, Austin

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Morley, Elliot

        814

        Moss, Malcolm

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Mountford, Kali

        Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Mudie, George

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Mullin, Chris

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Snape, Peter

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Soames, Nicholas

        Norman, Archie

        Soley, Clive

        Norris, Dan

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Spellar, John

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Olner, Bill

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        O'Neill, Martin

        Spring, Richard

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Ottaway, Richard

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Page, Richard

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Paice, James

        Steen, Anthony

        Paterson, Owen

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Pendry, Tom

        Stevenson, George

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Pickles, Eric

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Pike, Peter L

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Plaskitt, James

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Pollard, Kerry

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Pond, Chris

        Streeter, Gary

        Pound, Stephen

        Stringer, Graham

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Swayne, Desmond

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Syms, Robert

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Prior, David

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Purchase, Ken

        Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Radice, Giles

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Randall, John

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Rapson, Syd

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Timms, Stephen

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Tipping, Paddy

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Todd, Mark

        Robathan, Andrew

        Touhig, Don

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Townend, John

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

        Trend, Michael

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Trickett, Jon

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Rooker, Jeff

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Rooney, Terry

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

        Vaz, Keith

        Rowlands, Ted

        Viggers, Peter

        Roy, Frank

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Ruane, Chris

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Walter, Robert

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Wardle, Charles

        Salter, Martin

        Wareing, Robert N

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Watts, David

        Sawford, Phil

        White, Brian

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Whittingdale, John

        Sheerman, Barry

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Willetts, David

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        Wilshire, David

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Wilson, Brian

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Winnick, David

        Singh, Marsha

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Wise, Audrey

        815

        Wood, Mike

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Woolas, Phil

        Worthington, Tony

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wray, James

        Mr. David Hanson and

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Yeo, Tim

        Mr. Kevin Hughes.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Committee report progress: to sit again tomorrow.

      DEREGULATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
      DEREGULATION

        PIPE-LINES
        That the draft Deregulation (Pipe-Lines) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 30th November 1998, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Question agreed to.
        Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is simple: it will not have escaped your notice that over two thirds of hon. Members of this House have just voted against a complete proportional representation system for any election.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Hon. Members are entitled to vote as they please.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      DELEGATED LEGISLATION

        MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1983
        That the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Question agreed to.

      STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
      Ordered,
      That Sir Alastair Goodlad be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr. Eric Forth be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is important, not only for my constituents, but for all right hon. and hon. Members. Britain can be proud of its commitment to victims of crime. It is not universally understood that we pay out more to those who have had their lives damaged, and sometimes ruined, due to crimes committed against them or members of their family than any other European country—indeed, more than our European partners put together.
  That reflects the compassion and the natural justice ingrained within our society. The principle underpinning criminal injuries compensation is that it is an expression of public sympathy and support for the innocent victim.
  I was a social worker in Kent before being elected to the House, and I have experience of assisting abused children in making claims for compensation. The legal team working for Kent county council is held up as a beacon of excellence by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for the way in which it processed claims on behalf of the children in its care.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department will reply to the debate. He has a highly regarded reputation and his commitment to vulnerable people was evident to me in his previous work, particularly at the Department of Health.
  In the light of the review that the Government are holding, I shall address some of the issues relating to criminal injuries compensation. I am pleased to be joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  When changes were introduced a few years ago, they were not universally welcomed. However, there was consensus that, although payments would be less under a tariff scheme than through the previous system, the new claims would be processed much more speedily. From my experience of dealing with constituents, I know that it has been frustrating that some people claimed under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, not under the authority. Many cases wait and wait, letters are not answered and files have been lost. Indeed, one constituent has been waiting eight years for a final settlement.
  I have noted from written answers from the board's chairman, the noble Lord Carlisle, that additional members have been appointed to the board and that progress is being made with the backlog. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me this evening that he is monitoring the board's progress and will take steps if it appears to him that the board is unlikely to meet the required level of progress to clear the backlog by March 2000, as agreed.
  Even under the tariff scheme, victims can wait a year for a response. Thousands of cases go on to review and then appeal. We should look at how the system could be improved and speeded up. A high proportion of sexual violence cases are turned down at the initial and the review stages because the authority cannot make a

  817
  decision based on papers alone. For example, where a successful defence of consent in a rape trial results in acquittal, there is a conflict of evidence between the applicant and the offender and the case can be settled only at a hearing. The only way for applicants then to make progress is to appeal. However, that is after they have been told in writing by the authority that it is not satisfied that the injuries are the result of a crime.
  Hon. Members will understand that that is extremely distressing because, at that stage, the victim is unsure whether the decision that has been reached is a result of conflict, of lack of evidence or of the fact that the authority simply does not believe him or her. In such circumstances, an alternative might be for the panel to advise the victim that it cannot decide on the paper evidence and that it will make a request for an immediate initial hearing. That would speed up the process and give the victim the comfort that the case was at least being given fair consideration.
  All hon. Members will know of hideous crimes committed on their constituents and the impact that they have had. It seems wrong that we give compensation and then assess people's means for benefits, which can then be taken it away. I am aware that people have the option of opening a trust, but the amount of money that can go into a trust that can be used freely is limited. There are also solicitors' fees for setting up trusts, not to mention the issue of the liberty to spend one's money as one sees fit.
  There are examples of pensioners who have been mugged losing council tax benefit. I have worked with children who have suffered the worst forms of sexual abuse. They have had their income stopped because of an award. That cannot be right and it does not sit comfortably with the spirit of the scheme. Victims of crime should be treated as a special case. It is unjust that the less well-off lose their benefit entitlement because compensation has been awarded for a crime from which they have suffered. Has my hon. Friend considered speaking to the Secretary of State for Social Security on this matter?
  My next concern is that a number of victims have had their claims rejected because they have failed to report a crime to the police or have not co-operated with the police. Between 1990 and 1998, there were some 38,000 cases in this category, representing 24 per cent. of all cases. The representative bodies advise me that they are seeing an increase in that instance. Unison, my union, cites an example in which a hospital worker was viciously attacked by a psychiatric patient. She did not notify the police for five weeks because she did not know that she could claim. She did not know about the criminal injuries compensation scheme until her union representative told her about it. She then filed a claim, but it was not accepted because she had not co-operated with the police.
  Public sector service workers, particularly in the caring professions, are often reluctant to report assaults by clients to the police because they regard it—wrongly, in my view—as part of the job. Moreover, police involvement can also bring perceived difficulties to the client-worker relationship, particularly in the residential setting. Under the old scheme, the requirement to report incidents to the police was not so strict. Will my hon. Friend consider building in more flexibility in that regard?
  Some employees believe that they are discouraged from notifying the police of such assaults to avoid bad publicity. It would also be helpful if the Minister could comment on that.
  818
  I hope that, under the review, the Minister will consider the 28-week rule for special earnings. Public service workers are often vulnerable because they face violence at work. They may be back at work before 28 weeks. As well as the loss of earnings, they may incur large bills as a consequence of their injury. Replacement teeth and glasses are common and costly expenses.
  We should be proud of our compensation scheme. It was reluctantly accepted that the tariff system should operate, but the flip side was greater efficiency. There has been more efficiency and claims are processed more quickly. The rates were set in 1994, based on rates discussed in 1993, and they have not increased since. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that the Government want to increase the tariffs—perhaps not at this stage but at some point in the future—in line with prices.
  The upper limit should be lifted in extreme cases. I have noted the Home Secretary's comments that there is a desire to increase payments, especially in sexual attacks. I am sure that we all support that. In the most extreme cases, such as tetraplegia, a family could lose everything, so the award should be greater than the current limit of £500,000.
  There is always fierce competition for extra resources. I have made a pitch this evening, but I make no apology for that. I want an improvement in the help given to those who, through no fault of their own, have had their lives destroyed by violent acts of crime.
  10.27 pm
  Helen Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this debate on an important topic. I shall make a few brief remarks based on my experience, before I came into the House, as a solicitor specialising in personal injury, when I was aware of the injustices that the scheme perpetrates on many victims of crime.
  We should be clear that we are talking about innocent victims. Those who have contributed to their injuries in some way have their damages reduced accordingly. Many people have done nothing to bring such injuries on themselves, but are caught up in a difficult and complex scheme that does not always meet their needs.
  When the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was introduced by the Conservative Government in April 1996, it was with the explicit aim of reducing costs. They accepted that a move from assessing damages on a common law basis to a tariff scheme would reduce many awards. The payback for that was to have been that claims would be dealt with much more speedily. My experience, and that of many of my friends working in a similar field, has been that that was not the case.
  In a parliamentary answer given to me only yesterday, the Minister conceded that it was difficult to give the average times for claims being processed under the CICA, and I accept that, because cases vary widely. He said that, if the extremes of different cases were discounted, the average time for producing a first decision had dropped from nine months under the old Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to seven months under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
  We have paid a high price for a very small reduction. For instance, it is difficult for people to claim compensation for loss of earnings unless they have been absent from work for 28 weeks.

  819
  In another parliamentary answer given to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister, the figures show that the number of people claiming for loss of earnings has never risen higher than 0.69 per cent. of claims and has, on some occasions, been as low as 0.08 per cent. That figure does not reflect in any way the real loss of earnings that many people have suffered after a criminal injury.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to the tariff scheme. As it exists, the scheme does not cope with the wide variation in the effects of sexual assaults, and needs revising in that area.
  I am concerned that the quality of medical evidence obtained by the CICA is often very poor, particularly when one is dealing with cases of psychological damage. To challenge that, victims need to obtain their own medical evidence. If they are eligible for advice and assistance under the green form scheme, it is possible to persuade the Legal Aid Board to extend the green form to cover a medical report. In my experience, it is like pulling teeth to persuade the board to do so.
  Most people are not eligible under that scheme, and the burden that is therefore imposed on people of very modest means—who must pay hundreds of pounds to obtain the necessary medical evidence and, in some cases, must obtain several medical reports from different specialists—is quite intolerable. They are suffering a second time after having been the victim of a crime.
  The Government have done much to provide support for victims of crime, and to protect vulnerable people. I hope that, in looking at this matter, the Minister will take on board the deficiencies in the scheme and come up with something that enables people to claim adequate compensation, including compensation for loss of earnings and other expenses that they have incurred. At the moment, our victims of crime are treated much worse—and gain much less compensation—than those who engage in civil litigation for injuries that they have received. That cannot be a sensible or tolerable scheme.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing the debate, and thank him for allowing me some time to contribute. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), I was a personal injury lawyer before coming to this place. I dealt with many hundreds of claims involving the criminal injuries scheme—not the least of which was taking on the previous Government in the House of Lords on judicial review when they tried to produce a scheme that was found to be illegal, and which, ultimately, was replaced by the current scheme. In opposition, I was fortunate enough to be able to advise the current Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), on that measure. At the time, we highlighted a number of faults with the scheme.
  In the short time available to me, I shall go through some of my shopping list of faults. After the election, I submitted a paper to the Home Office with some suggestions for improvements to the scheme. One of the problems with the previous review was that it failed to address the issue of eligibility. The rules have hardly changed since 1964, when the original scheme was
  820
  introduced, and it is high time that we had another look at them. We should do so with particular reference to domestic violence because the domestic circumstances that give rise to domestic violence claims often no longer fit the rather strict eligibility criteria. We also need to look at the position of those who have unrelated or spent convictions, who could still be penalised when making a claim to the board.
  There are problems with the tariff scheme, some of which have been highlighted in the debate. There is a strong case for taking psychological injury and injuries sustained by victims of sex offences outside the parameters of the tariff scheme, because I do not think that many of those injuries are susceptible to reduction to a simple tariff system. Similarly with multiple injuries, the percentages do not do justice to the injuries of many victims.
  There are problems generally with a fixed-tariff scheme, and there are alternatives in the form of a matrix or banding which would not cost more but would, potentially, produce a fairer result. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to inflation, and the tariff is based on research that was originally carried out in 1992. The original intention was to uprate the scheme every three years. So far, we are still working with those somewhat out-of-date figures. This March or April, the Law Commission will publish a paper on levels of damages in personal injury claims. Perhaps when that is available, we can consider how the tariff scheme operates and whether the figures are a fair reflection of proper expectations.
  Another problem is limitation, which was reduced to two years in the new tariff, as opposed to the normal common-law system of three years. We need to consider that with particular reference to children, because the limitation period runs from the date of injury, not the date of the achievement of the age of majority, which is the normal system in common law. I understand that the Law Commission is also to publish a paper in August on the law of limitation.
  I share the sense of injustice of the families of people who were killed by murder or manslaughter who were not dependent on the victims of those homicides. They have lost out in the hiatus caused by the chaos of the reintroduction of the 1990 scheme. The 200 families should have had compensation of £10,000 but they had their applications dismissed. They would have qualified again under the reintroduced scheme, and the Government should redress the injustice. It would not cost much and I think that it could be done within the scheme's existing cash limits.
  There is a cap on payments for injuries of maximum severity. Unfortunately, the scheme requires claimants to jump through hoops and prove the value of their claim with expert reports. That can significantly eat into the value of the claim. Claims can be many hundreds of thousands of pounds over the cap, and I hope that we can devise a system that does not make tetraplegics, for instance, effectively waste money to prove the value of their claims.
  10.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been an interesting and well-informed debate. The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the

  821
  Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) for giving us the opportunity to reflect on the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which is of enormous importance to all our constituents, as our mailbags show.
  This debate is timely in many ways, not least because the Government are considering whether any further changes to the scheme are necessary or desirable and, if so, whether wider consultation is needed. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement to the House soon about our intentions in that regard.
  I am afraid, however, that I must disappoint my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford, for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who have spoken with such passion, conviction and wisdom, because I will not be able to make any such announcement tonight; but I can share with them the Government's determination to put victims at the heart of the Home Office's criminal justice policy and our response to concerns arising from the criminal actions of others.
  The state is not liable for injuries caused by the acts of others, but we are determined to continue to acknowledge in some way the public sense of responsibility for and sympathy with the blameless victim. Through the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the state provides a monetary award on behalf of the whole community.
  Of course, the scheme no longer seeks to provide finely judged compensation covering every head of damage that might be awarded in a successful civil suit. My hon. Friends the Members for Hendon and for Warrington, North have practised as personal injury lawyers, and they know the distinction that must exist between a statutory scheme with limited purposes and the full weight of a civil justice system in which claims may be tested, and in which the victim is free, if the attacker is known, to bring an action. That right remains: the criminal injuries compensation scheme represents some extra public recognition of the harm suffered by a blameless victim.
  There is no right sum of money to compensate a victim for the pain suffered as a result of a criminal injury. Any amount is, to some extent, arbitrary. As a result of experience of the scheme over a number of years, we have concluded that the tariff scheme represents the right approach. It is straightforward and transparent. It is simple for victims to understand, from the start they have a good idea of how much money they are likely to receive, and they receive that money more quickly than under the old scheme.
  Hon. Members write to me in such numbers that I cannot but understand their concern to make sure that the scheme works as efficiently as possible. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is doing a good job in clearing claims under the new tariff scheme. To date, it
  822
  has issued a first decision within 12 months in 85 per cent. of cases. The new appeals system is also proving faster. We cannot be complacent about progress, but I am glad that it is being made.
  Cases are being listed more quickly, and many applicants or their representatives are in the rather unusual position of having to request adjournments because they have not had time to prepare their cases. That is never a pleasant position for an advocate, as my hon. Friends will know, but it indicates the success of our measures.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for underlining continuing concerns about the need to settle rapidly residual common law damages cases, some of which are proving particularly complex and demanding. In those cases, applicants are having to ask for adjournments in order to prepare their cases more fully, and it is difficult, once a hearings place is lost, to fill another at short notice. All that adds to the backlog, but we are determined to ensure that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority meets its target of clearing old cases by 31 March 2000.
  As for the way forward, my hon. Friends have highlighted the concerns of their constituents about the scheme. I should make it clear that there is no prospect of a return to the common law damages scheme, or indeed to one based on individual assessment. That would increase unacceptably the cost of compensation and administration. In any compensation scheme that is dependent on public funds, there will always need to be that balance between the needs of the victim and the interests of the taxpayer. There will always be an argument as to where the balance lies.
  As we consider the way forward for a possible review of the scheme, I undertake that, whatever the decision, I will continue to ensure that my office is open, and officials are available, to hon. Members on both sides of the House so that they can continue to make their input into ensuring that the scheme is one in which we as a nation are entitled to take some pride. After all, it is the most generous scheme in the world. It pays out more compensation than all the other countries in Europe added together—more than £200 million in 1997–98 alone and about £2 billion since the scheme started.
  It is right that that should be the case. We must put the victim of crime first. We shall continue to do so—all the victims of crime, including public servants—and I assure the House that this debate has been a useful input into informing our decisions as to the best way forward. The victim of crime has come first and will continue to do so under this Government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  101 Battalion REME (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the officers and staff in Land Command who recommended the transfer of HQ 101 Battalion REME from Chorley to Queensferry. [65025]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It is not our practice to identify individual officials in this way under Exemption 2 (Internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officer vacancies exist in 101 Battalion REME in Chorley; and if he will estimate the number of officer posts in 101 Battalion REME that are likely to become vacant during 1999. [65022]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are currently no officer vacancies at 101 Battalion REME in Chorley. It is not possible to gauge the number of officer posts in 101 Battalion REME that may become vacant in 1999, but we expect to have no difficulty achieving full staffing.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will refer back to Commander in Chief Land Command the decision to transfer HQ 101 Battalion REME from Chorley to Queensferry. [65020]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I am satisfied that the advice that Land Command provided Ministers to inform their decision on the transfer of Headquarters 101 Battalion REME from Chorley to Queensferry was sound.

  RAF (Support Personnel)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many technical support personnel are required to support the deployment away from existing RAF bases of flights of four or eight Tornado aircraft; and how many will be required for similar flights of Eurofighter aircraft. [65754]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of technical support personnel deployed to support four or eight Tornado aircraft is dependent on several factors, including the operational requirement, the flying task, the number of hours to be worked in any one day and the amount of support available from the Host Nation. However, a flight of four or eight aircraft would be likely to generate a minimum of 82 and 144 technical support personnel respectively. An exact assessment of the numbers of technical support personnel required for Eurofighter has yet to be carried out, but preliminary studies indicate that approximately the same number of personnel will be required.
  392
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many technical support personnel are required to support the deployment away from existing RAF bases of flights of four or eight Jaguar aircraft. [66177]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of technical support personnel deployed to support four or eight Jaguar aircraft is dependent on several factors, including the operational requirement, the flying task, the number of hours to be worked in any one day and the amount of support available from the Host Nation. However, a flight of four or eight aircraft would be likely to generate a minimum of 65 and 110 technical support personnel respectively.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the forecast service life of(a) Eurofighter and (b) Jaguar aircraft engines. [65732]

  Mr. Spellar
  The forecast service life of the Eurofighter engine will be aligned to the predicted life of the whole aircraft, which is 25 years or 6,000 flying hours.

  The Jaguar aircraft entered RAF service in 1973. On current plans, the Jaguar fleet, including the engines, will leave service in the later part of the next decade.

  Modern aircraft engines are of modular design. Each module has an approved life and may be replaced during the life of the whole engine in accordance with established maintenance policy.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the forecast service life of(a) Harrier GR7 and (b) Jaguar aircraft airframes. [65731]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Harrier GR7 aircraft entered RAF service in 1987. On current plans, the Harrier GR7 fleet will achieve a service life of some 30 years.

  The Jaguar aircraft entered RAF service in 1973. On current plans, the Jaguar fleet will leave service in the later part of the next decade.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what service life has been achieved to date and what is forecast for Canberra aircraft in service with the RAF. [65733]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RAF Canberra fleet comprises two marks of the aircraft, the T4 and the PR9. The T4s entered service between 1954 and 1955 and have served some 44 years. The PR9s entered service between 1959 and 1960 and have served some 39 years. On current plans, the Canberra fleet will leave service in the early part of the next decade.

  Ships
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the interval between major refits for HMS Ark Royal. [65730]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The first refit of HMS Ark Royal has not yet taken place.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the forecast service life of each of the three aircraft carriers in service with the Royal Navy; and
  393
  what will be the (a) design life and (b) design interval between major refits of the proposed replacement carriers. [65910]

  Mr. Spellar
  The forecast service life for HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal is approximately 30 years. We plan to replace these carriers from around 2012 with two new, larger vessels. The planned service life of the new ships is a minimum of 30 years. The new carriers will not undergo lengthy major refits in the traditional sense, but will instead undergo shorter, but more frequent periods of maintenance lasting about six months every five or six years.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average time between major refits for(a) Type 22 and (b) Type 23 ships. [65753]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Typically, the average time between major refits for RN Frigates and Destroyers is in excess of 7 years.

  Surveillance Towers (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the intended strategic purpose of the surveillance towers on hilltop sites in the South Armagh area; and what factors would be taken into account in a review of these towers. [65998]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The primary function of the towers on hilltop sites is to protect Security Force bases in the South Armagh area and patrols conducted from them. As with all military establishments in Northern Ireland, the requirement for the towers is kept under continuous review to ensure the level of support provided to the RUC is consistent with the prevailing security situation and the assessment of the threat posed by terrorist organisations.

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the assumed or equivalent civil service grades of each of the special advisers employed in his Office; [65915]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1998, Official Report, columns 458–59, on special advisers, if he will list the assumed or equivalent civil service grade of each of the listed special advisers. [65916]

  The Prime Minister
  Special Advisers are employed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Special Advisers stand outside the departmental hierarchy and do not equate to particular civil service grades.

  Former Ministers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he made of the extent to which there was a conflict of interest in the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), having a loan from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) at a time when the right hon. Gentleman's Department was investigating the business affairs of the hon. Member. [66456]
  394
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Since the former Secretary of State was not involved in the Department of Trade and Industry's inquiries into certain allegations relating to companies with which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) had been involved, I am satisfied that no conflict of interest existed.

  Defence Restructuring
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the current composition of the Ministerial Group on the Restructuring of the European Aerospace and Defence Industry (MISC 5). [66847]

  The Prime Minister
  As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may have to take decisions under the competition legislation on the proposed merger which BAe and GEC have announced in principle, I have decided that, while these issues are under consideration, it would be preferable for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry not to participate in the work of MISC 5 in order to avoid any risk of it appearing that he had prejudged the issues involved. I have therefore appointed the Secretary of State for Defence as the Chairman of the Ministerial Group. The DTI will continue to be represented by the Minister for Energy and Industry.

  Devolution
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the draft concordats drawn up to govern relations between the Government and the Executives of(a) the Scottish Parliament and (b) the National Assembly for Wales. [66189]

  The Prime Minister
  Work is progressing on concordats both within the Scottish and Welsh Offices and in Whitehall Departments, as it is of course in Northern Ireland as well. None of them have yet been published.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he had with(a) leaders of the British Muslim community and (b) British Muslim academics before endorsing the bombing of Iraq. [65393]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government make every effort to ensure that they are aware of the views of the British Muslim community and that their policies are understood by that community. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met members of the Muslim press before and after Operation Desert Fox, and gave an address to the Muslim Council of Britain. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) also holds regular meetings with representatives of the Muslim community at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 143, concerning military action against Iraq, by whom the reasons are well understood. [66493]

  The Prime Minister
  I was referring to our European Union partners in my answer of 12 January. They know why we took military action against Iraq because we have briefed them fully on our reasons for doing so.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 December 1998,Official Report, column 962, what steps he plans to take to reduce the discarding of edible fish under the quota system. [66114]

  The Prime Minister
  Government policies which will reduce discarding of edible fish include reducing fishing effort, improving the selectivity of fishing gear and introducing fixed quota allocations.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 December 1998,Official Report, column 962, what steps he plans to take with other European countries to reform the Common Fisheries Policy; and if he will make a statement. [66113]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will continue to work with other Member States and the European Commission to achieve more effective and consistent enforcement of fisheries rules across the Community; integrate environmental considerations more fully into the Common Fisheries Policy to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks and the wider marine environment; apply structural and conservation measures in a way that achieves a sustainable future for the fishing industry; and improve the regional dimension of the CFP so that it is more sensitive to local differences.

TREASURY

  Financial Services
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses he has received to the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill; and if he will make a statement. [66812]

  Ms Hewitt
  The response to publication of the draft Bill in July 1998 showed strong support for the creation of a single statutory regulator. There is widespread interest in ensuring that the Financial Services Authority continues to operate a fair, open and accountable manner. The Government intend to clarify and, where necessary, to amend the Bill to meet valid concerns raised on consultation and in response to the current inquiry by the Treasury Committee and the intended pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses.

  In the meantime, we have decided to strengthen further the openness and accountability of the new regulatory regime. We intend to include in the Bill a statutory requirement for the FSA to establish practitioner and consumer panels, underpinning the arrangements the FSA has already put in place. We also intend to include in the Bill a requirement for the FSA to hold an annual open meeting at which the Chairman and others can be questioned on the FSA's policy and performance. The Bill will also include a requirement that the non-executive members should form a majority on the FSA Board.

  The statutory requirements in the draft Bill for the FSA to consult on rules will be improved and will include a requirement that proposed rules and rule changes be accompanied by an explanation of how they relate to the FSA's objectives. The consultation requirements will also be extended so as to apply to standing guidance of general application.
  396
  The draft Bill requires the FSA to have in place arrangements for independent investigation of complaints. The FSA will be required under the Bill to consult on these arrangements. We also intend that in addition to publishing the conclusions of his investigation the investigator should be able to report on the FSA's response to any recommendations made.

  The FSA will be accountable to Ministers and through them to Parliament. Its annual report under the Bill will be a key aspect of that accountability. The draft Bill enables the Treasury to require the FSA to report on specific matters. We will begin discussions with the FSA with a view to publishing an agreed list of matters to be covered in the report. We also intend that the Treasury should be given new powers to commission and publish periodic independent value for money audits of the FSA.

  The draft Bill provides the Treasury with a number of powers to make statutory instruments. Drafts of key orders will be published for public consultation shortly. We will also undertake appropriate consultation on the other orders.

  Former Ministers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he was first informed of the loan by the previous Paymaster General to the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; [66457]

  (2) if he will list the Ministers and officials in his Department with whom he discussed the loan by the previous Paymaster General to the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the dates on which he had such discussions; [66461]

  (3) what discussions he had about the loan by the previous Paymaster General to the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with the Prime Minister; and on what date he first had such discussions; [66459]

  (4) what discussions he had about the loan by the previous Paymaster General to the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with his adviser, Mr. Charlie Whelan; and on what date he first had such discussions. [66458]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: This was and is a matter involving the former Paymaster General and the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is not a matter for Treasury Ministers.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what matters or correspondence involving building societies were dealt with by the previous Paymaster General between 1 May 1997 and the date of his resignation. [66445]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The previous Paymaster General had no ministerial responsibility for building societies.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contact he has had with the Inland Revenue regarding the taxation position of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), the hon. Member's business interests and those offshore trusts connected with the hon. Member. [66446]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers have no ministerial responsibility for or involvement in the tax affairs of individuals.

  Financial Support
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to disclose what financial support he has received since 1 May 1997 for the development of his economic policies and the sources of that financial support. [66448]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  My policy is to act in accordance with the Ministerial Code and with the House of Commons rules for registration of interests.

WALES

  National Assembly
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the appointments of officials to the National Assembly made to date; and if he will estimate, in each case, their annual cost. [64503]

  Mr. Michael
  In preparation for the National Assembly for Wales, the following appointments have been made to the Office of the Presiding Officer and the Executive Secretariat of the Assembly.

  Pay band £

  Counsel General

  77,840–113,680

  Office of the Presiding Officer

  Senior Director Assembly Business

  71,250–107,300

  Director, Assembly Business (and project manager for the establishment of the Office of the Presiding Officer

  54,230–90,400

  Assistant Director, Public and Research Services

  40,420–63,490

  Chief Translator

  27,043–41,935

  Deputy Head Translation Services (Interpretation)

  20,723–31,978

  Executive Secretariat

  Head of Executive Secretariat

  40,420–63,490

  Implementation Unit

  2 x Pay Band F (G7)

  27,043–41,935

  2 x Pay Band D (HEO)

  15,990–24,464

  3 x Pay Band C (EO)

  12,240–18,360

  2 x Pay Band B (AO and PS)

  9,536–13,700

  The full year costs of the Implementation Unit would be £215,400 based on the 1998–99 projected average grade costs. The unit has a limited life span and will exist for 6 months.

  A number of further appointments, for example for translators and for general administrative staff, are currently in train.

  All of these costs are included in the estimated additional running costs.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of(a) the number of people who will be employed by the National Assembly and (b) the total cost of their employment to public funds. [64529]

  Mr. Michael
  The bulk of the existing staff of the Welsh Office will transfer to work for the Assembly but the Assembly will require more staff than those currently employed in the Welsh Office; the Explanatory & Financial Memorandum to the Government of Wales Bill 398
  estimated the number at about 100. The annual additional running costs of the Assembly have been estimated as £15 million to £20 million more than the costs of running the Welsh Office, which are currently some £70 million. These additional costs include the pay and allowances of Assembly members and the accommodation and information technology requirements of members and staff as well as the additional staff costs.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the arrangement originally entered into by the Welsh Office for the lease of Crickhowell House, Cardiff, were in line with Treasury rules for the leasing of such property; what study was undertaken of comparable buildings in the area; and what rents were sought for leases of such alternative options. [65282]

  Mr. Michael
  A copy of the option appraisal prepared by Welsh Health Common Services Authority (WHCSA) in respect of moving to new accommodation on a single site was submitted by the Department to Treasury for approval on 17 May 1991. Treasury advised that there were no objections to the proposed option provided that the Department's Accounting Officer was satisfied that taking into account all elements of the appraisal, financial and non-financial, the option represented the best value for money.

  Eight developers with 11 sites were approached in January 1991 and seven of these made outline proposals. Refinements of the brief and the proposals led to a short list of three by June 1991. Of the three proposals, one was eliminated for financial reasons, and 2 were broadly similar. Having taken independent legal and property advice and having considered rents and other financial aspects, WHCSA's Board recommended the Grovesnor Waterside bid for providing leased accommodation at Crickhowell House.

  I have asked the Chief Executive of WHCSA to send the right hon. Member a copy of the post project evaluation report prepared by the Authority.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the members of the European Objective I Task Force and the organisation or councils they represent. [65413]

  Mr. Hain
  The Wales European Task Force, which was set up to look at the use of Structural Funds across all of Wales, consists of the major social and economic partner organisations with an interest in economic development. Except where indicated membership is for organisations, not individuals. The membership is as below:

  WDA

  WLGA

  Council of Welsh TECs

  Heads of Higher Education institutions in Wales

  Fforwm

  Welsh Council for Voluntary Action

  TUC

  CBI

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  399

  Wales Tourist Board

  National Farmers' Union

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Mr. Hywel Ceri Jones

  Wayne David MEP (representing all Welsh MEPs)

  The Four Regional Economic Fora

  The Environment Agency.

  This membership may be varied as the work of this task force moves forward.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the use of private jets by ministers in his Department since 2 May 1997. [65673]

  Mr. Michael
  As part of visits to British Aerospace the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), joined the company's regular shuttle services between Filton, Hawarden and Toulouse. These flights were at no cost to the Department and were not in place of scheduled flights. Private jets have not been used by Welsh Office Ministers on any other occasion since 2 May 1997.

  Long-stay Care Hospitals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes in his policies for long-stay care hospitals. [66034]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Many long stay units are small, modern or updated facilities which have a clear, locally agreed, role and these will continue. The remaining large mental and learning disability hospitals will be closed as and when resources allow but only when there are facilities in place to deliver a safe and effective service.

  Nurses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on nurses' pay. [66030]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Review body for Nursing Staff, Midwives and Health Visitors which considers nurses pay has recently submitted its report to the Prime Minister. A decision on its recommendations is likely to be announced shortly.

  NHS (Resources)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new money is scheduled for the NHS in the forthcoming financial year; and if he will make a statement. [66032]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Comprehensive Spending Review provided an additional £175 million to NHS Wales in 1999–2000 bringing total provision to £2,654.9 million. This represented a 7.1 per cent. increase on 1998–99 provision.

  Pensioners (Free Transport)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated annual cost of the proposal to allow 400
  unlimited free public transport in Wales to people of pensionable age; from what sources those costs would be met; and if he will make a statement. [65907]

  Mr. Hain
  I am consulting local authorities and bus operators on how best to move to free concessionary bus travel for pensioners, which I expect to see phased in over the next two to three years. Until this work has been completed it is not possible to put a precise figure on the cost of the proposal. The method of funding the additional costs will be a matter for the National Assembly to determine.

  Housing (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) starts and (b) completions of Housing Association homes there have been in Flintshire in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [66418]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Starts and completions achieved by Housing Associations in the last three financial years are as follows:

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  Starts

  Flintshire

  145

  118

  207

  Wales

  2,468

  3,200

  3,688

  Completions

  Flintshire

  90

  213

  250

  Wales

  2,989

  3,717

  3,799

  Over this period Flintshire has received approximately 5 per cent. of the Housing Association programme in Wales. Resources have been made available to Housing Associations in Flintshire to achieve a similar outcome in financial year 1998–99.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he plans to assist Flintshire County Council to repair and modernise its housing stock; and if he will make a statement. [66416]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Flintshire County Council's Basic Credit approval (BCA) for 1999–2000 is £8.833 million. It is for the Council to decide on the capital expenditure that it wishes to support from its BCA, including housing. In addition to the BCA supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs) of £100 million are also available to local authorities in Wales to support strategic housing projects. All local authorities have been invited to submit proposals by the end of January for the use of those SCAs.

  Job Opportunities
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the diversity of job opportunities outside the M4 and A55 corridors. [66398]

  Mr. Hain
  Increasing job opportunities and spreading economic prosperity to all parts of Wales is a key objective for the Government. It is being pursued through the Strategic Guidance to the WDA and will be fundamental to the aims of the National Development Strategy covering EC Structural Funds, currently being prepared by the European Task Force.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will respond to the Motor Neurone Disease Association's report on the effect of the Benefit Integrity Project on people with Motor Neurone Disease. [65591]

  Mr. Bayley
  I responded to the Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Association on 19 January 1999.

  The Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) has been subject to continuous review and prior to the Association's report being published in November 1998, significant improvements had been made to the way in which the BIP operated. Since 5 October, people with MND who are receiving the higher rate of mobility component together with the highest rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance were exempt from the operation of the Project.

  We plan that BIP should be replaced by a new system of review which is part of the routine administration of the benefit and which is both sensitive and fair. We are currently discussing our proposals with the Disability Benefits Forum.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) of 1 December 1998,Official Report, columns 145–47, on the Benefit Integrity Project, what estimates his Department made of the level of successful reviews and appeals following decisions made by the Benefit Integrity Project, when calculating estimated benefit savings; and what plans his Department has to revise the current estimate for benefit savings to reflect the latest statistics on appeals against decisions made under the Benefit Integrity Project. [66413]

  Mr. Bayley
  The most recent estimate of benefit savings from the Benefit Integrity Project is £8 million for 1997–98, £30 million for 1998–99 and £35 million for 1999–2000. A further estimate of the savings attributable to this Project will be calculated when it ceases.

  Notes:

  1. The estimate is based on information on reviews and appeals to the middle of 1998. This showed awards were increased in 32 per cent. of review decisions and 73 per cent. of appeal decisions. Cases processed as part of the Benefit Integrity Project after this date were assumed to follow a similar pattern in terms of review and appeal decisions.

  2. This estimate was made on the assumption that the Project would continue to March 2000.

  Disability Benefits
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if recipients of Severe Disablement Allowance will be compelled to attend work-focused job interviews through the Single Gateway to Work. [66245]

  Angela Eagle
  Through the Single Work-Focused Gateway we want to offer help to the widest range of people possible—no one should be denied the offer of help and assistance.
  402
  Attendance at a Personal Adviser interview will be a condition of receiving benefits for claimants of working age who are out of work including those claiming Severe Disablement Allowance. However, this requirement may be waived or deferred in appropriate cases.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the responses to the consultation document on disability benefits. [66708]

  Mr. Bayley
  Consultation on our proposals for the reform of benefits for disabled people ended on 8 January and 342 responses have been received. Just over half came from organisations representing disabled people, at both national and local level, from local authorities, and from the insurance industry. Most of the remaining responses came from individuals. Nearly 50 hon. Members submitted responses, many from their constituents. The All Party Disablement Group also submitted a response. We thank hon. Members and all those who took the time and trouble to respond to the consultation document and can assure them that we are studying the responses carefully.

  A list of the organisations who responded has been placed in the Library. Copies of the list and copies of specific responses are available, excluding those that requested confidentiality, on request from the Disability Benefits Consultation Team, Department of Social Security, 6th Floor, The Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what rules or guidance his Department has to govern the(a) formal and (b) informal interaction between his civil servants and commercial lobbyists. [66217]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer from my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 27 July 1998,Official Report, column 4.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People (Employment Services)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the services that will be available to a disabled person attending an interview through the Single Work-focused Gateway announced on 13 January; and how these differ from those under the Single Gateway to Work announced in "A New Contract for Welfare: The Gateway to Work" (Cm 4102). [66200]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  For clients of working age accessing the benefit system, including people with disabilities, the work focused interview with a personal adviser will consist of an in-depth investigation of individual needs and an exploration of ways to overcome any barriers that prevent participation in the labour market. The adviser will access information on a wide range of options available locally and provide a personalised calculation of potential in-work income. The aim will be to draw up and agree a tailor-made plan of steps which the individual can take.
  403
  The personal adviser will help people gain access to relevant services. Thus, for disabled people, it may be appropriate to seek the advice and support of a disability employment specialist or to get some kind of mentoring support.

  The announcement on 13 January was that £79 million has been made available from the Invest to Save budget to finance the piloting of the Single Work Focused Gateway described in "A New Contract for Welfare: The Gateway to Work" (Cm 4102), which are thus one and the same.

  New Deal (Hart)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have entered the New Deal Gateway in the Hart district council area since its inception; and how many took up each New Deal option. [65296]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide separate figures for individual towns or council areas.

  The latest Government Statistical Service figures for the Guildford Unit of Delivery, which covers Hart, show that to the end of October 1998 (a) 461 young people had entered the Gateway and 126 have secured unsubsidised employment; (b) 69 had joined one of the four options: 14 on the Employment option; 9 on the Voluntary Sector option; 3 on the Environment Task Force; and 43 on the Full-Time Education and Training option. 150 young people were on the Gateway, 22 had left New Deal to claim other benefits, 19 had gone to other known destinations and 75 had gone to unknown destinations.

  Jobcentres (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many job centres are fully accessible for the disabled; and what percentage have the equipment and trained staff to offer a gateway interview to disabled people. [65086]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Geraint Davies, dated 19 January 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your question regarding the number of Jobcentres that are fully accessible for the disabled; and what percentage have the equipment and trained staff to offer a gateway interview to disabled people. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It may be helpful if I explain that for the last three years the Employment Service has carried out an annual audit of progress on its planned programme of works to improve the accessibility of Jobcentres to people with disabilities. This is to ensure that we comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act within the timescales set. The audit indicates whether our buildings have wheelchair access, loop hearing aid facilities and disabled toilets.
  The latest audit results showed that from a total of 1180 premises, 93% have wheelchair access for clients. The remaining offices offer alternative arrangements to clients with special needs—either arranging interviews at a nearby office with disabled access or by visiting the clients in their homes.
  404
  In addition, 64% of Jobcentres have toilet facilities for disabled people and 72% have loop hearing facilities. We expect these proportions to increase to 66 and 90% respectively by April 1999 as part of our planned improvement programme.
  With regard to the percentage of offices which have staff trained to offer New Deal gateway interviews to disabled people, I can confirm that we are normally able to provide such a service in all of our offices.
  I hope this is helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Children (Parental Contact)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reasons the courts and other authorities are not able to take action when one parent takes unilateral action in preventing the other parent from having contact with their child. [65880]

  Mr. Hoon
  Contact arrangements normally work best when both parents are willing to co-operate, and in approaching the enforcement of contact orders the courts will seek to secure this. But the courts can, and will, enforce orders granting a parent contact with a child, including imprisonment as a last resort. Courts take their decisions in the best interests of the child and in the light of all the evidence and the particular circumstances of each case.

  Decennial Census Records
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what powers he has to reduce the closure period of official decennial census records; what representations he has received requesting the reduction of the closure period of official decennial census records; and if he will instruct the Public Record Office to reduce the closure period of official decennial census records to 75 years. [65913]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has powers under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 to reduce the closure period of official records with the approval, or at the request, of the Minister primarily concerned.

  The Lord Chancellor has received a number of representations from family historians requesting a reduction in the closure period of official decennial census records.

  The Lord Chancellor does not intend to change the existing closure period, which corresponds to the guidelines established in the White Paper Open Government of 1993 (Cm 2290). This assigned a 100-year closure period for decennial census returns on the grounds that they consisted of documents supplied in confidence the disclosure of which would constitute a breach of good faith.

  The intention of the Minister primarily concerned with the decennial census returns, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, was expressed in a written answer to Lord Teviot on 14 October 1997, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 138–39.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Hearing Impairment)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate his Department has made of the total cost of introducing retrospective changes to the superannuation scheme for civil servants so as to ensure that former and current civil servants are granted pension entitlements for the years they were designated as having permanent unestablished status solely on the basis of a hearing impairment. [65268]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  No estimate has been made of these costs (or of extending any concession to the large numbers of civil servants who in other circumstances did not qualify for a pension). I am afraid that I can hold out no hope of any relevant improvement in the statutory provisions. In superannuation matters, it is rarely, if ever, possible to make changes with retrospective effect.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate his Department has made of the total number of civil servants who have not yet reached retirement age who have at some point in their career been given permanent unestablished status solely on the grounds of a hearing impediment. [65267]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The distinction between established and unestablished service disappeared in 1972 when a new pension scheme was introduced. Staff serving in an unestablished capacity, including those on permanent unestablished terms, were admitted to the scheme. Their earlier unestablished service then became pensionable. There are no centrally held records of the numbers of staff serving in a permanent unestablished capacity who resigned before this change was made and who subsequently returned to the Civil Service.

  The Stationery Office
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what controls are used to assess(a) competitiveness and (b) relative costs, and what measures he takes to limit those costs when purchasing printed matter from The Stationery Office. [66093]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office seeks to achieve best value for money from all of its purchasing activities whether it is buying printed matter or other goods and services.

  Cabinet Office Print Procurement arrangements are currently handled via the Central Office of Information which places work with suppliers who have been appointed after competition and in accordance with EC Public Procurement regulations. The Stationery Office Ltd. is just one of those suppliers and is only used when it is able to provide the most cost-effective solution.

  In addition, the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, acting in her capacity as Queen's Printer, has a number of Print and Publishing contracts with The Stationery Office Ltd. These cover the "Civil Service Year Book", Acts of Parliament, Measures of the Synod of the Church of England, Statutory Instruments, Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland, Command Papers, and the London, Belfast and Edinburgh Gazettes. The contracts, which were let on 30 September 1996 as part of the privatisation exercise undertaken by the last Administration, expire
  406
  on various dates between 30 September 2000 and 30 September 2001. The process of re-tendering under EC Public Procurement procedures will commence in April 1999.

  If The Stationery Office Ltd. decides to bid for any Cabinet Office contract it is treated no differently from any other company submitting tenders for the work.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what rules or guidance his Department has to govern the(a) formal and (b) informal interaction between his civil servants and commercial lobbyists. [66205]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 27 July 1998,Official Report, column 4.

SCOTLAND

  National Lottery (Staffing)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff are employed by the Scottish Office, the Scottish Sports Council, the Scottish Arts Council and other public bodies in connection with administration of the National Lottery; and what are the annual costs involved in administering and allocating grants within Scotland under the various National Lottery schemes. [63855]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: The number of staff employed and the annual costs involved in connection with the administration of the National Lottery are as follows:

  Number of staff

  £

  The Scottish Office

  11.5

  50,000

  Scottish Arts Council

  135

  21,908,000

  Scottish Sports Council

  135

  21,206,647

  1Staff numbers are full time equivalent. The numbers of staff involved in Lottery issues fluctuate throughout the year.

  2Figures relate to 1997–98.

  The Millennium Commission, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board also distribute Lottery funds in Scotland. These bodies operate on a UK-wide basis. It is not possible to estimate precisely the numbers of staff or administration costs associated with their work in Scotland.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service (Race Relations)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report of the Prison Service Race Relations Group. [66707]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A copy of the eighth report of the Prison Service Race Relations Group to the Prisons Board has been placed in the Library.

  Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Thorn Cross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours a week are spent by prisoners at Thorn Cross Young Offenders Institution, Cheshire, on education, community work, preparation for employment and work to change offending behaviour; and how this compares with time spent on similar activities at other young offenders institutions. [66248]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service does not record separately the time spent on all of the activities listed.

  For the financial year 1998–99 to the end of December, the average weekly time spent in education by prisoners at Thorn Cross was 13.2 hours. This compares with an average across all young offender institutions of 5.9 hours.

  This includes daytime education, vocational training courses, construction and industrial training courses and evening education classes.

  The average weekly time spent on total purposeful activities at Thorn Cross for the same period was 49.3 hours. The average for all young offender institutions was 22.0 hours.

  Total purposeful activity includes education, training, employment in prisoner enterprise service workshops, employment in prison farms, gardens, kitchens and messes, cleaning and domestic work in the prison, resettlement and rehabilitation activity and physical education.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost for each place on the high-intensity training pilot scheme at Thorn Cross Young Offenders Institution, Cheshire. [66250]

  Mr. George Howarth
  £22,700 per year.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost of keeping a prisoner at a young offenders' institution. [66244]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts, copies of which are in the Library, provide information on the average annual cost per place by establishment type, however, this includes establishment costs only and excludes Prison Service headquarters overheads. The average annual net operating cost per place in a young offender institution for 1997–98 was £18,400.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis prisoners are selected for a place on the high-intensity training pilot scheme at Thorn Cross Young Offenders Institution, Cheshire. [66249]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Young offenders are considered on the basis of applications made by the young offender himself or on the recommendation of his probation officer, personal officer, court or family. Applicants must be category D prisoners suitable for open conditions. Those serving sentences for sexual offences, offences against children or offences involving serious violence are not eligible. Applicants must have a sufficient period of their sentence remaining to enable them to complete the course before release. Those applicants who meet these criteria are interviewed and assessed by a team of staff 408
  from Thorn Cross, which includes a psychologist, to identify those with the greatest potential to benefit from the high-intensity training scheme.

  Cellphone Jammers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the letter of 20 September to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what he has done to keep under review the possible use of cellphone jammers to disrupt criminal activity. [65396]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office is looking at these devices to determine their suitability for police use.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) target time and (b) average actual time between applications for renewal of visas and decisions for nationals of (i) Bahrain and (ii) China currently in the United Kingdom. [65755]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  2,280 applications for further leave to remain by nationals of Bahrain and of China were decided in the public enquiry offices on the day of application in 1998; and 1,260 postal applications were decided within 16–17 weeks in respect of both nationalities. We aim to decide all applications in the shortest possible time.

  State of Emergency Regulations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which department of Government have responsibility for keeping the UK State of Emergency regulations under review; when the last review was made; if he will undertake his own departmental review of the regulations; and if this matter has been included in the general review of international obligations announced on 3 July 1997. [65999]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office has overall responsibility for any emergency regulations that might be made under the powers contained in the Emergency Powers Act 1920. However, as the Act covers a wide range of subjects, a number of other Departments might also be involved if regulations were needed.

  A review of the potential requirements was carried out in 1995. A fresh review involving departments generally, which includes considering Millennium related issues, is in progress. Until a situation requiring the use of emergency powers arose, any link with international obligations would be hypothetical.

  Diarmuid O'Neill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date findings of the police investigation into the shooting on 23 September 1996 of Diarmuid O'Neill were received by(a) the Police Complaints Authority, (b) the Crown Prosecution Service and (c) Her Majesty's Coroner; and what decisions have been made by each of these bodies concerning criminal or disciplinary action. [66085]
  409
  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the police investigation report was sent to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) on 2 November, and to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Her Majesty's Coroner on 20 November.

  As at 18 January, no decisions had been taken in relation to criminal action by the CPS, or to disciplinary action by the PCA, with the Metropolitan Police. Her Majesty's Coroner has no role in relation to such action.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each other European Union country, how many asylum seekers have been accepted in each of the last two years. [66112]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The most recent available information, for 1995 and 1996, is given in the table. This was taken from the report of the Secretariat of the Inter-Governmental Consultation on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia, entitled "Report on Asylum Procedures—September 1997". No figures were published for Austria, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg or Portugal.

  Cases recognised as refugees and granted asylum in countries in the European Union, 1995 and 1996

  Country

  1995

  1996

  Belgium

  604

  313

  Denmark

  4,810

  1,214

  Finland

  4

  11

  France

  4,742

  4,344

  Germany

  23,468

  24,000

  Italy

  287

  157

  Netherlands

  7,980

  8,806

  Spain

  464

  n/a

  Sweden

  8,460

  130

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been allowed into the United Kingdom in the last two years; and from which countries they came. [66115]

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

  Table 1: Applications1 for asylum, received in the UK, excluding dependants, by nationality and location where made, 1997 and January to November 1998

  Number of principal applicants (Total)

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  700

  Cyprus

  580

  Poland

  1,880

  Romania

  1,450

  Former USSR

  4,535

  Turkey

  3,215

  Former Yugoslavia

  9,430

  Others

  3,175

  Total

  24,970

  Americas

  Colombia

  1,725

  Others

  2,005

  Total

  3,735

  410

  Table 1: Applications1 for asylum, received in the UK, excluding dependants, by nationality and location where made, 1997 and January to November 1998

  Number of principal applicants (Total)

  Middle East

  Iran

  1,260

  Iraq

  2,235

  Lebanon

  300

  Others

  1,055

  Total

  4,850

  Africa

  Algeria

  1,855

  Angola

  330

  Cameroon

  255

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  1,265

  Ethiopia

  460

  Gambia

  170

  Ghana

  555

  Ivory Coast

  155

  Kenya

  1,430

  Liberia

  275

  Nigeria

  2,755

  Rwanda

  335

  Sierra Leone

  1,340

  Somalia

  6,680

  South Africa

  100

  Sudan

  460

  Tanzania

  165

  Togo

  85

  Uganda

  405

  Zimbabwe

  135

  Others

  1,225

  Total

  20,445

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  3,155

  Bangladesh

  985

  China

  3,755

  India

  2,250

  Pakistan

  3,440

  Sri Lanka

  5,060

  Others

  830

  Total

  19,480

  Other and unknown nationalities

  270

  Grand Total

  73,745

  1Figures rounded to nearest 5

  London Fire Brigade
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that the London Fire Brigade can meet any additional fire risk associated with the Millennium Dome. [66090]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The statutory responsibility for ensuring efficient fire services rests with the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each derogation from Article 8 of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC which he plans to provide to the Commission, pursuant to Article 8(6) of that Directive; and if he will make a statement. [65981]
  411
  Mr. George Howarth
  I am not yet in a position to provide a full list. The derogations will include processing covered by paragraphs 7 and 9 of Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and by any order made under paragraph 10 of that Schedule. Such an order is likely to include the processing of information about criminal offences and criminal convictions for the purpose of preventing or detecting criminal offences; the processing by political parties of information about political opinions in connection with canvassing; and certain processing by the police or other investigating organisations. I am considering further suggestions made in the responses to last August's consultation exercise on subordinate legislation under the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the uses made of the Electoral Register for non-electoral purposes and (b) those bodies which have indicated to his review of the use of the Electoral Register for non-electoral purposes that they access the Register; and if he will make a statement. [65967]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office Working Party is continuing to examine the case for a change in the way in which the electoral register is made available for non-electoral purposes. The main uses so far identified include credit referencing, direct marketing, and the prevention of fraud and money laundering. There is also some use made by charities for fundraising, and by genealogists for research purposes.

  Most of the organisations which have responded do not purchase copies of the register directly: those indicating that they use data at least partially based on the register, but excluding local authorities and other Government Departments, were:

  Abbey National

  Advertising Association

  Age Concern

  Alliance and Leicester

  American Express

  Association of British Insurers

  Bank of Ireland

  Bank of Scotland

  Blue Cross

  Britannia Building Society

  British Bankers' Association

  British Retail Consortium

  Brooks and Bentley Ltd.

  CACI Ltd.

  Cadogan Estates Ltd.

  CBI

  Celebration File

  Charity Commission

  Communicator

  Computing Group Ltd.

  Consumer Credit Trade Association

  Council of Mortgage Lenders

  Credit Card Research Group

  Credit Services Association

  Direct Marketing Association

  412

  Direct Select

  Equifax

  EuroDirect

  Evand Hunt Scott Ltd.

  Experian

  Finance and Leasing Association

  Foxtons Ltd.

  GB Information Management

  George Walker and Co.

  Grattans PLC

  HFC Bank

  Hopewiser Ltd.

  Imperial Cancer Research Fund

  Institute of Credit Management

  Institute of Sales Promotion

  Integral Marketing Ltd.

  IPA

  JICPOPS

  Lewis Group Ltd.

  Library Association

  List Experts Ltd.

  Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society

  Lowe Direct Ltd.

  Mailbird Organisation

  Mail Order Traders' Association

  Market Research Society

  MBNA International Bank

  National Consumer Credit Federation

  National Geographic Society

  Newspaper Society

  NSPCC

  Oxfam

  Periodical Publishers Association

  Post Office

  QVC the Shopping Channel

  Reader's Digest

  Registry Trust Ltd.

  Response Marketing Ltd.

  Rothmans (UK) Ltd.

  Sainsbury's Bank

  Sears Financial Services Ltd.

  Small Business Bureau

  TBDA Ltd.

  Telegraph Group Ltd.

  Valldata Services Ltd.

  Waddies Print Group

  WWAV Rapp Collins.

  Police Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the practice of enforced subject access to police records for purposes which are not related to employment; and if he will make a statement. [65964]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is difficult to know, in any particular case, whether a subject access application has been "enforced" but in the opinion of the police, the majority
  413
  of enforced subject access applications are made for employment purposes. We have not undertaken any further research into this practice.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of Slovenia are currently being detained in the UK as illegal immigrants; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the last three years. [657361

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Greyhound Races
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will legislate to ensure that all greyhound tracks are required to subscribe to a national registration scheme. [65877]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans for such legislation.

  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will implement a betting levy on greyhound races to be used in establishing a national monitoring authority to supervise races in respect of animal welfare issues. [65876]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans to legislate for a levy on greyhound betting.

  Overseas Electors
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British citizens entitled to vote in British elections currently live overseas. [66098]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of British citizens included as overseas electors in the current register published in February 1998 was 17,315. The Office for National Statistics will publish figures for the new register, which comes into force on 16 February 1999, by the end of April.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by each police authority area how many breathalysed drivers were deemed to have exceeded the legal limit between Christmas and the New Year in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [65873]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures collected by the Home Office do not enable the Christmas and New Year period to be separately identified. The Association of Chief Police Officers, however, has collected figures on the number of positives tests of drivers who had been involved in collisions dealt with by the police during the Christmas Drink Drive campaign for the last two years, and these are in Table 1. Comparable figures for 1996–97 are not available.

  The Home Office does, however, collect and publish figures for the month of December, and they are given on Table 2. Figures for 1998 are not yet available, but will be published in the spring.
  414

  Table 1: Drivers involved in collisions during the Christmas drink drive campaign period who gave a positive breath test (or who refused a test) in England and Wales

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Avon and Somerset

  30

  35

  Bedfordshire

  13

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  17

  12

  Cheshire

  30

  19

  Cleveland

  4

  9

  Cumbria

  11

  7

  Derbyshire

  17

  15

  Devon and Cornwall

  43

  49

  Dorset

  8

  8

  Durham

  15

  9

  Essex

  20

  27

  Gloucestershire

  15

  7

  Greater Manchester

  63

  50

  Hampshire

  66

  55

  Hertfordshire

  20

  10

  Humberside

  37

  24

  Kent

  33

  38

  Lancashire

  34

  31

  Leicestershire

  12

  19

  Lincolnshire

  16

  10

  London, City of

  —

  2

  Merseyside

  23

  14

  Metropolitan Police

  247

  161

  Norfolk

  16

  12

  Northamptonshire

  12

  14

  Northumbria

  47

  12

  North Yorkshire

  16

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  23

  26

  South Yorkshire

  25

  11

  Staffordshire

  20

  15

  Suffolk

  11

  10

  Surrey

  21

  24

  Sussex

  41

  31

  Thames Valley

  60

  49

  Warwickshire

  9

  15

  West Mercia

  46

  34

  West Midlands

  69

  59

  West Yorkshire

  64

  53

  Wiltshire

  27

  20

  Dyfed-Powys

  16

  10

  Gwent

  12

  36

  North Wales

  43

  6

  South Wales

  28

  13

  Total

  1,380

  1,081

  Source:

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Table 2: Total number of positive/refused breath tests in England and Wales during December

  1996

  1997

  Avon and Somerset

  270

  280

  Bedfordshire

  80

  120

  Cambridgeshire

  110

  130

  Cheshire

  200

  120

  Cleveland

  90

  80

  415

  Table 2: Total number of positive/refused breath tests in England and Wales during December

  1996

  1997

  Cumbria

  80

  80

  Derbyshire

  180

  160

  Devon and Cornwall

  200

  100

  Dorset

  100

  130

  Durham

  100

  110

  Essex

  260

  310

  Gloucestershire

  130

  120

  Greater Manchester

  580

  630

  Hampshire

  340

  310

  Hertfordshire

  110

  120

  Humberside

  100

  110

  Kent

  150

  140

  Lancashire

  320

  230

  Leicestershire

  180

  170

  Lincolnshire

  90

  90

  London, City of

  50

  50

  Merseyside

  220

  190

  Metropolitan Police

  1,720

  1,440

  Norfolk

  90

  110

  Northamptonshire

  90

  120

  Northumbria

  310

  310

  North Yorkshire

  170

  170

  Nottinghamshire

  240

  220

  South Yorkshire

  210

  200

  Staffordshire

  170

  170

  Suffolk

  120

  100

  Surrey

  130

  120

  Sussex

  240

  170

  Thames Valley

  570

  450

  Warwickshire

  120

  110

  West Mercia

  200

  140

  West Midlands

  330

  340

  West Yorkshire

  320

  470

  Wiltshire

  110

  110

  Dyfed-Powys

  80

  70

  Gwent

  130

  110

  North Wales

  140

  120

  South Wales

  230

  340

  Total

  9,640

  9,140

  Source:

  Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate

  Probation Officer Statistics
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many probation officers are currently in training; [65764]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the prospects for a national shortage of qualified probation officers based on current projections of annual turnover, natural wastage and numbers in training; [65786]

  (3) how many probation officers were in training in each year from 1990 to the latest year for which figures are available. [65765]
  416
  Mr. George Howarth
  There are at present 274 trainee probation officers. A work force planning study is currently being undertaken, and this will provide national data on the number of new probation officers needed over the next five years.

  Under the previous training scheme for probation officers, the Home Office sponsored students on Diploma in Social Work courses. The numbers of students starting sponsored courses from 1990 to 1995 was:

  1990: 336

  1991: 434

  1992: 451

  1993: 470

  1994: 305

  1995: 300.

  The scheme ended with the 1995 students. It should, however, be noted that research indicated that only about 60 per cent. of those sponsored went on to become probation officers.

  Firearms (Compensation)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many compensation claims have been made to each police force in England for firearms reloading presses indicating the number(a) approved and (b) paid; [65775]

  (2) how many claims for compensation have been received to date for (a) Lee Progressive and (b) RCBS Firearms reloading presses; and how many have been (i) approved and (ii) paid. [65776]

  Mr. Boateng
  Payments have been made in respect of 578 reloading presses surrendered under Option B of the compensation scheme to police forces in England. Lee and RCBS presses are not included within this total as these types of press must be claimed under Option C of the compensation scheme. I regret to say that information is not at present available on the numbers and types of press surrendered and paid under this Option.

  Millennium (Policing)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the extra costs to police forces in England and Wales of policing millennium celebrations; and what plans he has to provide additional resources to meet those costs. [65883]

  Mr. Boateng
  The police service have estimated that the costs of policing millennium celebrations across England and Wales on 31 December 1999 could be around £12 million out of total available expenditure of over £7 billion.

  The Government's spending plans for the police announced last July, and re-stated in a reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on 2 December 1998, Official Report, columns 194–97, will allow Total Standard Spending on the police in England and Wales to increase by £186 million next year, a 2.7 per cent. increase over 1998–99. Police authorities will be able to increase their spending power by achieving the 2 per cent. efficiency target which has been set and re-investing the savings in front-line policing. There is also some scope for increased

  417
  spending from council tax. However, the Government expect police authorities to set budgets that are responsible, prudent and reasonable and which do not impose an excessive increase in council tax.

  Dr. Bavo Omoviola
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the proposed deportation of Dr. Bavo Omoviola (H.O. Ref 0138995); and if he will make a statement. [66327]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Secretary and I have received a number of representations both from Members of this House, friends and supporters of Dr. Omoviola, and representatives of his local community. Full and careful consideration is being given to these representations.

  Crime Reduction (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been made available for the crime reduction programme in Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [66421]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the crime reduction programme, £250 million is available over the next three years for England and Wales for projects which offer a significant and sustained impact on crime. We will be announcing in due course the allocation of funding as each of the programme's initiatives is launched.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been made available for the Targeted Policing Scheme in Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [66422]

  Mr. Boateng
  £32 million is available over the next three years for the development of targeted policing in England and Wales as part of the crime reduction programme. The closing date for police forces to apply to be one of the first 10 projects, due to start from April, is 29 January and, as a result, no decisions have yet been taken on the location of the projects.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cumulative cost to his Department of ministerial use of RAF flights in the year to 1 May 1997. [64739]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: As my answer of 9 December 1998, Official Report, column 214, made clear, Ministers are required under the terms of the Ministerial Code always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. The rules on travel for Ministers are the same as those that applied to the previous Administration. Travel by Ministers on Royal Air Force flights between the 16 month period between 2 May 1997 and 30 September 1998 is not directly comparable with the 12 months of the previous Administration.

  The cumulative costs in the year to 1 May 1997 was £7,343.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Books (Funding)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on future funding for school books and library books in Northern Ireland. [65109]

  Mr. McFall
  The Block Grant allocations to Boards in total will enable the School Library Service to receive £2.8 million in 1999–2000, an increase of 2.6 per cent. In addition, specific provision of £0.5 million has also been made to enhance the school library book stock. The amount is expected to increase to £1 million in each of the following 2 years.

  In addition £1.45 million is being allocated to support projects within the National Year of Reading and the School Improvement Programme to enhance literacy and numeracy skills.

  Employment Statistics (Foyle)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many job losses there were in the constituency of Foyle in 1998. [65313]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1998 there were 756 confirmed redundancies in the constituency of Foyle.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each ward in the constituency of Foyle the percentage of(a) people of working age in employment, (b) males of working age in employment, (c) females of working age in employment, (d) people unemployed, (e) males unemployed and (f) females unemployed, in (i) December 1997 and (ii) December 1998. [65347]

  Mr. Ingram
  The latest figures available for those of working age in employment in the Foyle Parliamentary Constituency relate to summer 1998. These are given in the table below, together with corresponding figures for summer 1997. Estimates at ward level are not available.

  Percentage of working age in employment

  All persons

  Males

  Females

  Summer 1988

  58.5

  67.6

  50.0

  Summer 1997

  56.7

  61.6

  52.1

  Source:

  Labour Force Surver

  The percentage of the work force unemployed is not available at ward level. However, the following table shows the numbers of male, female, and total claimant unemployed in each ward in the Foyle Parliamentary Constituency Area at December 1997 and December 1998.

  Derry district council—unemployment

  Ward

  Male

  Female

  Total

  As at December 1997

  Altnagelvin

  120

  47

  167

  Ballynashallog

  152

  43

  195

  Banagher

  101

  23

  124

  Beechwood

  147

  20

  167

  Brandywell

  178

  30

  208

  Carn Hill

  185

  39

  224

  419

  Derry district council—unemployment

  Ward

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Caw

  141

  40

  181

  Claudy

  104

  15

  119

  Clondermot

  103

  15

  118

  Corrody

  160

  37

  197

  Creggan Central

  185

  33

  218

  Creggan South

  133

  24

  157

  Crevagh & Springtown

  422

  71

  493

  Culmore

  198

  49

  247

  Ebrington

  111

  27

  138

  Eglinton

  126

  30

  156

  Enagh

  123

  25

  148

  Faughan

  85

  20

  105

  Glen

  181

  32

  213

  Lisnagelvin

  46

  13

  59

  New Buildings

  84

  26

  110

  Pennyburn

  118

  46

  164

  Rosemount

  176

  44

  220

  St. Peter's

  122

  28

  150

  Shantallow East

  158

  23

  181

  Shantallow West

  269

  35

  304

  Strand

  222

  64

  286

  The Diamond

  268

  72

  340

  Victoria

  136

  32

  168

  Westland

  186

  36

  222

  Total

  4,740

  1,039

  5,779

  As at December 1998

  Altnagelvin

  73

  30

  103

  Ballynashallog

  151

  36

  187

  Banagher

  97

  13

  110

  Beechwood

  130

  23

  153

  Brandywell

  148

  24

  172

  Carn Hill

  155

  31

  186

  Caw

  89

  30

  119

  Claudy

  111

  18

  129

  Clondermot

  125

  25

  150

  Corrody

  182

  40

  222

  Creggan Central

  160

  31

  191

  Creggan South

  122

  22

  144

  Crevagh & Springtown

  399

  70

  469

  Culmore

  182

  50

  232

  Ebrington

  64

  11

  75

  Eglinton

  136

  35

  171

  Enagh

  77

  20

  97

  Faughan

  101

  35

  136

  Glen

  194

  51

  245

  Lisnagelvin

  31

  6

  37

  New Buildings

  97

  35

  132

  Pennyburn

  102

  40

  142

  Rosemount

  178

  51

  229

  St. Peter's

  131

  21

  152

  Shantallow East

  143

  29

  172

  Shantallow West

  228

  37

  265

  Strand

  222

  70

  292

  The Diamond

  280

  58

  338

  Victoria

  139

  23

  162

  Westland

  168

  30

  198

  Total

  4,415

  995

  5,410

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average income for people in employment in the constituency of Foyle(a) in the constituency as a whole, (b) per ward, (c) per ward for males and (d) per ward for females in the most recent year for which figures are available. [65315]

  Mr. Ingram
  Estimates of total income (including income from sources other than salaries and wages) are not available at Parliamentary Constituency level. In 420
  1998, the average gross weekly earnings of full-time adult employees in the constituency of Foyle was £339.8. The average for males was £381.9 and the average for females £281.3. Similar information at ward level is not available.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full-time higher education places are available to students in the Northern Ireland Western Education and Library Board area. [65308]

  Mr. McFall
  There were 2,864 students enrolled on full-time higher education courses at institutions located in the Western Education and Library Board area in 1997–98. Enrolment figures for 1998–99 are not yet available.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which locations student nurse training places are provided; how many of the places at each location have been filled by applicants; if there is a shortage of nurses in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [65291]

  Mr. McFall
  Pre-registration student nurse training is commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Services through a contract arrangement with Queen's university of Belfast. For 1998–99 the number of pre-registration places included in the contract were 425, of which 419 were taken up by applicants.

  I am satisfied that we do not face the same nursing recruitment and retention difficulties as there may be in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is no immediate concern about a shortage of nurses available to meet the requirements of the HPSS in Northern Ireland. However, I have asked my Department to monitor the situation.

  Schools (Preparatory Departments)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which schools there are facilities for preparatory departments; and how many pupils are enrolled in each of these preparatory departments. [65484]

  Mr. McFall
  Schools with preparatory departments and their enrolments are as follows:

  School name

  Enrolment1

  Ballymena Academy

  94

  Bangor Grammar School

  115

  Belfast Royal Academy

  235

  Bloomfield Collegiate

  79

  Campbell College

  159

  Balriada School

  125

  Down High School

  105

  Foyle and Londonderry College

  50

  Friends School

  187

  Glenlola Collegiate

  94

  Hunterhouse College

  88

  Larne Grammar School

  36

  Lurgan College

  35

  Methodist College

  534

  Portadown College

  37

  Raincy Endowed School

  29

  Regent House School

  160

  Royal Belfast Academical Institution

  238

  Royal School Armagh

  49

  421

  School name

  Enrolment1

  Royal School Dungannon

  22

  Strathearn School

  151

  Sullivan Upper School

  190

  Victoria College

  157

  Wallace High School

  198

  1Figures exclude nursery and reception pupils

  Electricity
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints she received about Northern Ireland Electricity services during December 1998; what proposals she has to nationalise the electricity distribution systems in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [65485]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received some 30 complaints and inquiries about the disruption to power supplies caused by the storms in late December. In addition, the independent Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland, who has the statutory duty to protect the interests of consumers in respect of continuity of supply and quality of supply services provided, has received some 1,050 complaints and inquiries. The Director has sought a full and detailed report from ME by 31 January 1999 on the company's response to the problems encountered by consumers over the Christmas holiday period. The Secretary of State met NIE on 6 January and expressed her concern about the difficulties faced by consumers. NIE agreed to provide the Secretary of State with a copy of the report being prepared for the Director. The Government have no plans to nationalise the electricity distribution system in Northern Ireland.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the estimated populations of the boroughs of(a) Ards, (b) Castlereagh and (c) North Down; what proposals there are to provide a natural gas supply in these three boroughs; and if she will make a statement. [65482]

  Mr. Ingram
  According to figures produced at the 1991 Population Census the population of these Boroughs is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Ards

  31,527

  33,237

  64,764

  Castlereagh

  28,946

  31,853

  60,799

  North Down

  34,284

  37,548

  71,832

  Under the terms of the Development Plan contained in the combined licences for the conveyance and supply of gas to the Greater Belfast area, issued to Phoenix Natural Gas Ltd. on 5 September 1996, the company is required to provide gas to these Boroughs as follows:

  Ards by the end of the year 2006

  Castlereagh by the end of the year 2005

  North Down by the end of the year 2003.

  Grammar Schools (Boarders)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which grammar schools there are facilities for boarders; and how many boarders there are at each of these schools. [65483]

  Mr. McFall
  There are facilities for boarders at 9 grammar schools in Northern Ireland and the number of pupils who board are as follows:

  School

  No. of boarders as at 1 January 1999

  Campbell College, Belfast

  46

  Friend's School, Lisburn

  35

  Hunterhouse College, Belfast

  54

  Methodist College, Belfast

  137

  The Royal School, Armagh

  64

  The Royal School, Dungannon

  31

  St. Colman's College, Newry

  47

  St. Patrick's Grammar, Armagh

  41

  Victoria College, Belfast

  36

  Policing Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she received the report of the June 1998 police investigation into the circumstances of departmental leaks concerning her telephone conversations about appointments to the Policing Commission; and if she will list(a) the principal conclusions of the report and (b) her responses to each recommendation. [66086]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  An internal Government investigation into the matter is ongoing. A separate rigorous review of document handling and distribution within the Department has been completed and its recommendations are being considered.

  Equality Working Group
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects to receive the report of the equality working group chaired by Dr. Joan Stringer; and if she will make a statement. [65993]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Equality Commission Working Group has had four meetings and intend to consult interested parties before finalising its recommendations. They anticipate reporting to me in early March. However, the Secretary of State expects to receive an interim report shortly recommending a structure for the Board, following which the Secretary of State hopes to advertise Commissioner posts.

  Wrongful Convictions (Compensation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 10 December 1998,Official Report, column 270, on compensation for wrongful conviction, how many persons have had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal in each of the last 10 years. [65994]
  423
  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of persons whose convictions have been quashed by the Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland during the last 10 years are, by year:

  Year

  Number of persons

  1992

  3

  1994

  1

  1997

  1

  1998

  1

  One person had a separate conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal for England and Wales, has made an application for compensation to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in respect of the quashing of both convictions. In the case of another person, the court quashed his conviction but ordered a retrial.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Country Strategies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those country strategies which have been prepared in consultation with ambassadors for British business; and if those consultees have business interests in the country assessed. [66343]

  Clare Short
  We have, so far, published fifteen country strategy papers (Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Peru, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, Vietnam). In developing these country strategies, we have consulted widely including the business community, both in-country and in the UK. Our approach has been to work with established business groups, rather than with individual companies. In developing countries we have consulted with British business associations and local chambers of commerce. In the UK, we have worked with the DTI Area Advisory Groups for specific countries as well as with business groups with a regional or country interest.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many students from sub-Saharan Africa were in receipt of her Department's awards to study in Britain in(a) 1989–90 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available; what was the percentage change in awards; and if she will make a statement. [66198]

  Clare Short
  The number of students from sub-Saharan Africa who were in receipt of my Department's awards to study in Britain in 1989–90 and 1997–98 are as follows:

  1989–90: 7,671

  1997–98: 1,585.

  The percentage change in awards is—79 per cent.

  This reflects the positive commitment shift from UK-based training to "in-country" and regional training and workshops over the past ten years.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's awards to students from sub-Saharan Africa for study in Britain are managed by the British Council. [66219]
  424
  Clare Short
  All the Department for International Development's awards for training in Britain for students from sub-Saharan Africa are managed by the British Council.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will increase the number of her Department's awards to students from sub-Saharan Africa to study in Britain. [66220]

  Clare Short
  The provision of awards for study in Britain is determined by the priorities identified in our Country Strategy Papers, in line with my Department's White Paper on poverty elimination. We shall continue to address the needs of Sub-Saharan Africa for skills development by ensuring that training awards and centrally funded scholarship schemes are targeted on those countries which need them most.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what factors underlie her Department's policy for making awards to sub-Saharan Africans to study in Britain; and what assessment she has made of the benefits to(a) the students and (b) Britain. [66224]

  Clare Short
  The provision of awards for study in Britain is intended to support the development goals and priorities outlined in the White Paper. For Sub-Saharan Africa the need is to build up skills which will contribute to their countries' social and economic development, including scientific and technological development.

  Scholarship schemes are reviewed periodically by my Department; the latest review was carried out by Sir William Taylor in August 1997. A number of benefits were identified.

  The benefits of interest to DFID are the enhancement of skills and capacity to promote the development of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is the proper objective of all spending of DFID's development assistance.

  British Council
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on British Council work, funded by her Department, to support civil society, human rights and democracy in East and West Africa. [66199]

  Clare Short
  The British Council manage, under contract to the Department for International Development (DFID), a number of projects in East and West Africa which involve support for civil society, human rights and democracy. In East Africa these include a £1.4 million civil society programme in Kenya which funds a range of democratisation and human rights initiatives, a project to strengthen the capacity of the Ugandan National Electoral Commission and programmes to empower women in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

  The focus in West Africa is Nigeria. There, the British Council manages a fund for small scale good government initiatives to strengthen accountability and transparency, human rights, democracy and training in conflict management. The annual budget was increased to £500,000 for this financial year, in particular to help with the transition to democratic rule now under way.
  425
  In addition, good government is an operational area for the British Council's grant in aid funding in East and West Africa, part of whose costs have been met by my Department.

  Palestinian Authority (EU Funds)
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the use of funds donated to the Palestinian Authority by the European Union. [64594]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The European Union, including individual Member States, has made a major contribution to supporting the Middle East Peace Process by providing 54 per cent. ($1.7 billion) of total development assistance to the Palestinians since 1993. This includes over 650 mecu provided directly by the European Commission to the Palestine Authority. My Department maintains good links with EC officials in Brussels and the West Bank and Gaza, and participates in the Maghreb/Mashreq Working Group at which aid policy towards EC projects for the Palestine Authority is discussed. To enable Member States to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of EC aid we pressed for an evaluation of the EC's recently expired five-year programme of assistance for the Palestinians. We understand that this evaluation is soon to be finalised, and expect to receive the findings shortly.

  Misappropriated Aid
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 23, if she will list (a) the countries and (b) the projects in respect of which overseas expenditure was misappropriated through corruption or fraud in 1996–97 and 1997–98; what prosecutions have taken place in respect of these amounts, and with what outcome; and if any of the money has been recovered. [66595]

  Clare Short
  In each of the following projects the amount shown was not properly accounted for and we have concluded that this was, or may have been, due to fraud. To date no prosecutions have been mounted and none of the money has been recovered although some locally engaged staff have been dismissed in two of these cases. Investigations are still proceeding into each of the 1997–98 cases. I cannot of course give details of these ongoing cases which could prejudice any proceedings which might take place.

  1996–97: Zambia: Health and Population Sector, £6,287. The loss from a locally operated imprest account was investigated thoroughly but there was insufficient evidence against any individual for a successful prosecution. Arrangements for financial management have since been tightened.

  1997–98: (1) Bangladesh: Population and Health Consortium, £45,633; (2) Kenya: National Museums, £1,000. The figure for 1997–98 in my answer of 11 January 1999 included an estimated amount of £11,660 which has since been fully and properly accounted for.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her oral answer of 16 December 1998,Official Report, column 954, on
  426
  Zimbabwe, when the review of the Government's overall relationship with Zimbabwe was announced; what are the terms of reference of the review; what progress has been made; what plans she has to publish its conclusions; and if she will make a statement. [66488]

  Clare Short
  As I said in my letter of 14 January 1999, I am not quite sure how to make the position any clearer than I did in the House on 16 December. I had hoped that the hon. Lady would by now understand the process in which my Department is currently engaged.

  Since this Government's creation of the Department for International Development and publication of the White Paper on International Development, we have been engaged in a process of consulting and reviewing our country strategies across the world, to bring them into line with the new principles, policies and objectives contained in the White Paper. As part of this process, we are reviewing our Zimbabwe strategy, as I mentioned in my answer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 16 December 1998. Some of the new strategies have already been published, and the new Zimbabwe strategy will be published in early 1999. This will help to make clear the differences between our approach and that of the previous Administration.

  I have already explained to the House that our policy in Zimbabwe will be based on eliminating poverty, partly by promoting a transparent and poverty-focused approach to land reforms. We have also made this clear to the Government of Zimbabwe. We are not reviewing that policy: it has been clear since we formed our Government.

HEALTH

  Mental Health Code of Practice
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in relation to paragraph 26.3 of the Mental Health Code of Practice for England, he will indicate(a) who takes the decisions on what would be in the child's best interest, (b) who the subsection is primarily aimed at and (c) for what reasons the subsection is drafted in wide terms. [65181]

  Mr. Hutton
  Paragraph 26.3 of the revised Mental Health Act Code of Practice, laid before Parliament on 3 December 1998, was included to ensure that visits by a child to a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 are considered in relation to the child's best interests as well as the patient's, and that such decisions are recorded and monitored. The child should be treated as an individual with his or her own needs, and any decision to allow a child to visit a patient should be a positive one that it would be in their best interests.

  Directions have already been issued to the three special hospitals regarding arrangements for visits by children. We intend to issue separate guidance as soon as possible to assist all other hospitals that take detained patients, and social services departments, in drawing up child visiting policies. This will be subject to prior consultation. Decisions on whether a child should visit will be the responsibility of the hospital managers, and hospital policies will set out the arrangements for deciding whether a child should visit a patient. Such arrangements will need to take account of the significant role that those

  427
  with parental responsibility have in allowing such visits. Written hospital policies will also set out those circumstances when parental consent alone will be sufficient to allow a child to visit a patient, and where this is not sufficient, who else should be involved in the decision-making process.

  Recording of visits will allow hospital staff, with local social services departments, to monitor visits and regularly review the desirability of continuing visits by a child should the particular circumstances surrounding the patient, or the ward, change. The environment in which visits by children take place will be important when considering the child's best interests.

  Paragraph 26.3 of the Code is drafted in wide terms to ensure that all visits by children are considered in this way. In the majority of cases, decisions will be straightforward, and will not affect current visiting practices. However, where hospitals or units care for mentally disordered offenders or those patients with more severe forms of mental illness policies on visiting will need to be more detailed and rigorously enforced.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the implementation of the Calman/Hine report on the organisation and delivery of cancer services in the North London region; and if he will make a statement. [65063]

  Mr. Hutton
  In that part of the London Region which was formerly within the North Thames Region, the majority of health authorities have focused initially on breast cancer services and have agreed standards of care for their cancer units based on the guidance "Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer" published in July 1996. Progress has also been made on the designation of those units that will provide services for colorectal, lung and gynaecological cancers. Work is planned within the new London Region to harmonise the standards and processes adopted by the different health authorities and to jointly agree future milestones for the designation process. Also provisionally designated centres are continuing to develop protocols of care for each cancer.

  The network of care and centre unit links in London are complex, particularly north of the Thames. Further work will be carried out jointly by the new London Regional Office, health authorities, centres and units to clarify these networks, and to ensure that the protocols of care and centre unit links are developed properly.

  Paediatric Physiotherapy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government have taken to ensure that children receive paediatric physiotherapy in line with their statements. [65499]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following the consultation on the Green Paper "Excellence for All Children", my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Health and Education and Employment set up a joint working group to consider how to improve arrangements for providing speech and language therapy to children with special educational needs. This will include discussion of other therapies, including physiotherapy, which may form part of a statement of special educational needs.

  Electroconvulsive Therapy
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received ECT(a) with and (b) without consent in each of the last five years. [65908]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. The Department is undertaking a one-off survey on electroconvulsive therapy to cover activities in mental health trusts and other private hospitals and clinics over a three month period from January to March 1999. The results will be available later this year.

  Older People (Care)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives he is taking to improve the recuperation and rehabilitation services available for older people. [65323]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: A letter issued by the Government in 1997 entitled "Better Services for Vulnerable People" presented a programme of work which included as one of its objectives the improvement of recuperation and rehabilitation services for older people. It focused on three specific initiatives:
  the development of joint investment plans in continuing care and mental health;
  a national development programme which focuses on rehabilitation;
  the development of a national framework for multi-disciplinary assessment in acute and community health care settings, jointly with social services.

  This initiative was aimed at all vulnerable people but specifically mentioned older people as a priority for early work.

  Through the additional £159 million winter pressures funding announced in November 1998 and the £65 million additional funds made available in the summer to support sustained reductions in waiting lists, health authorities and National Health Service trusts working with social services have been required to target investment in better community rehabilitation and recuperation schemes to enable patients to return home safely.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the timetable for National Health Service trusts to take action to ensure they have in place adequate resources and quality assurance systems for older people in hospital. [65319]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: A Health Circular (HSC 1998/220) was distributed to chief executives of all health authorities and NHS trusts on 27 November 1998, together with a copy of the report commissioned from Health Advisory Service 2000 "Not Because They Are Old" concerning the care of older people on acute wards in hospital, requiring immediate appropriate remedial action where the essentials of care are not being provided.

  The national service framework for older people will set standards for the care of older people. Progress against these standards will be monitored and performance will be made public. The national service framework will be developed over the next year to be operational from April 2000.
  429
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will carry out a review of the merits of integrating care of the elderly with acute medical services. [65335]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: The new national service framework for older people will focus on those parts of the National Health Service that are particularly important to older people. It will look at how services are organised and delivered, and where appropriate define service models based on best practice.

  Mental Health (Nutrition)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will commission trials to assess the efficacy of nutritional therapy in treating mental health problems; [65975]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that doctors are aware of evidence linking nutrition and forms of mental illness. [65976]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no strong evidence that nutritional deficiencies play a role in the causation of schizophrenia nor that nutritional therapy has a role in its treatment. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutritional Policy have set up a subgroup to look at folic acid and the prevention of disease, which includes mental illness.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government funding is available for voluntary organisations that assist child abuse sufferers. [65968]

  Mr. Hutton
  Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (S64) gives Ministers the power to make grants to voluntary organisations.

  During the financial year 1998–99 the Department is providing a total of £416,324 in funding to six voluntary organisations assisting children at risk of, or who have experienced, child abuse;

  The organisations are:
  Childline, established in 1986 to listen to, comfort and protect children in trouble or danger. Funding for 1998–99, £163,000 core funding and £10,000 for the dedicated line for children in care.
  St Christopher's Fellowship, providing care and accommodation to vulnerable children and young people. Funding for 1998–99, £25,000.
  Kidscape, a registered charity founded in 1984 to prevent child abuse and bullying. Funding for 1998–99, £30,000.
  Parentline UK, a national helpline established in 1993 to contribute to the prevention of child abuse and neglect by providing a service for anyone parenting a child. Funding for 1998–99, £25,000.
  Churches Child Protection Advisory Service helps leaders of churches and children's organisations by providing advice and guidance on issues of child abuse and protection, and supporting individual children and families. Funding for 1998–99, £26,550.
  Barnardos, a project to support children vulnerable to sexual exploitation and those involved in prostitution. Funding for 1998–99, £111,774.

  Opportunities for Volunteering Scheme
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new funding will be made available in 1999–2000 for grants under the Opportunities for Volunteering scheme. [66092]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department will provide funding of £6.9 million for the Opportunities for Volunteering Scheme in 1999–2000. The funding will enable existing grant commitments to be met while the Department develops, in consultation with the Opportunities for Volunteering, national voluntary organisations and other interested parties, its overall strategy to promote volunteering and targeting of the scheme. While the strategy is being developed it would not make sense for new Opportunities for Volunteering grants to be made, committing future funding. The position from 2000–01 will be included in the consideration of the strategy.

  Young Carers
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives the Government are undertaking to address problems faced by young carers. [66059]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Strategy for Carers, announced by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister last June, has been looking in depth at the needs of young carers, including, among other issues, at what action is already being taken through schools and how that can be enhanced. A United Kingdom consultative conference was held on 19 November 1998 to discuss how the needs of all carers might be better met and among the delegates present were representatives of young carers organisations. Through our national priorities guidance for health and social services authorities, we are also asking general practitioners, primary care teams and social services authorities to identify carers. We are also testing a new data collection system, the Referrals, Assessments and Packages of Care, in social services departments. Under this system, social services authorities will collect information about the assessments undertaken and carers identified. The data will be broken down by broad age group, including for young people under 18.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cuba
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with representatives of the Cuban Government on their relations with the United States of America and Britain. [64587]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited Cuba in October and held discussions with the Vice-President and a number of Cuban Ministers. In November she received Sr. Cabrisas, Cuban Minister for Foreign Trade and discussed UK bilateral relations, among other subjects. Our Ambassador in Havana last month raised Cuba/US relations with the Cuban Government.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he has provided to the Palestinian Authority in combating terrorism. [64601]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We make a significant contribution to the $8 million EU package of counter-terrorism assistance to the Palestinian Authority to help it deliver its security commitments.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east following the Wye agreement. [64608]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in the House today to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Milton-Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [64613]

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support the Palestinian Authority in developing a sound economy. [64615]

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process. [64618]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friends to the oral answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey),Official Report, column 694.

  Government Hospitality (Wine)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the purchase of wine for Government hospitality purposes. [64603]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The policy is intended to ensure availability of wines of appropriate quality at reasonable cost for official hospitality hosted by Ministers on behalf of HMG.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the economic future of the Falkland Islands. [64604]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Licence revenue from a well managed fishery has enabled the Falkland Islands Government to build up healthy reserves of more than £143 million without receiving any aid from the UK budget since 1992. The islanders are diversifying their agriculture, promoting tourism and the service sector and investing in better infrastructure and public services, while safeguarding their environment. It is too early to say whether there is oil in recoverable quantities in Falklands waters.
  432
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have received from President Clinton concerning negotiations over, and the sovereignty of, the Falkland Islands. [65819]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have received no proposals from President Clinton concerning negotiations over, or the sovereignty of, the Falkland Islands. The American Government have reiterated that they would like to see two of their close friends overcome their differences, but that it is not appropriate for them to be involved.

  Franco-British European Defence Initiative
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom's foreign policy of the Franco-British European defence initiative. [64606]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the foreign policy implications of the Franco-British European defence initiative. [64619]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is firmly in Britain's interests for Europe to speak and act more effectively on the world stage. But, as recent events in Kosovo have shown, a stronger and more coherent European voice in international foreign policy must be backed by a more effective European military capability. The St. Malo Declaration of 4 December set out a framework for building this capacity.

  This initiative has been welcomed by the US Government, to whom we have it made it clear that NATO will remain the cornerstone of European security and the basis of our collective defence.

  Ethiopia and Eritrea (Border Dispute)
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts have been made by his Department(a) bilaterally and (b) in cooperation with EU partners to encourage the Eritrean Government to respond positively to the proposals presented by the Organisation of African Unity to Ethiopia and Eritrea on 7 and 8 November relating to the settlement of their border dispute. [64607]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have taken advantage of bilateral meetings with Eritrea Government representatives in Asmara and London to reinforce the message that full acceptance of the OAU proposals provide the way forward.

  After the OAU issued its proposals on 7–8 November we supported an EU Presidency statement urging both parties to commit themselves to full acceptance. The Presidency Declaration of 16 December reiterated this position.

  Syria
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Syria. [64609]
  433
  Mr. Fatchett
  I visited Syria from 8 to 10 December and had useful meetings with President Asad and Foreign Minister Shara'a. Our talks focused on the Middle East Peace Process, Iraq and bilateral issues.

  Iraq
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Iraq. [64610]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We remain committed to maintaining international pressure on Iraq to fulfil its obligations and to preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbours once again. We are at one with our friends and allies on this. Our main priorities are to resolve outstanding disarmament questions and to improve further the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Discussions in the Security Council are focusing on both issues. We are also looking with EU partners at proposals for alleviating the suffering to which Saddam Hussein continues to subject the Iraqi people.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the claim by Mr. Scott Ritter that UNSCOM supplied information to five countries in return for intelligence from their sources; and if he will make a statement. [66102]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  UNSCOM is entitled to seek information and advice from all possible sources in pursuit of its mandate to destroy Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction capability.

  UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler has made it clear that he has always insisted on all UNSCOM activity being carried out strictly in pursuit of its disarmament mandate, not to benefit any individual member state.

  Afghanistan (Women)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the position of women in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [64611]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We receive frequent representation about the plight of women and girls in Afghanistan. At the start of our EU Presidency last year we drew up and agreed a new Common Position on Afghanistan. This urges the Afghan factions to end discrimination and promote equal rights. We ensured that UN Security Council Resolutions 1193 and 1214 did the same. We will continue to urge all factions fully to respect human rights.

  Sudan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Sudan. [64612]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The situation in Sudan continues to cause us great concern. While humanitarian conditions in some of the areas worst hit by famine have stabilised, UN agencies expect there to be continuing substantial need in 1999. The suffering is, of course, made much worse by the continuing civil war.
  434
  We are therefore working with the UN and others to improve the delivery of aid at the same time as pressing all sides to work towards a peaceful settlement to the civil war—the only long-term solution to the humanitarian crisis.

  We continue to support the IGAD peace process as the best way to bring about a negotiated end to the civil war. In this context, UN Special Envoy Vraalsen will shortly be visiting the region, as will an IGAD Partners Forum mission. We are lending our full support to these initiatives.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the British Ambassador to Sudan to return to Khartoum. [66490]

  Mr. Fatchett
  When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary ordered the withdrawal of British staff from our Embassy in Khartoum on 27 August 1998, he said that it was only a temporary withdrawal and that he hoped the necessary conditions for the return of staff would be re-established before too long.

  We are in regular contact with the Sudanese Government through their Embassy in London. British staff from our Embassy in Khartoum, who are currently based in Nairobi, have also made a number of visits to Sudan.

  Arms Control and Disarmament
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current discussions he is having on arms control and disarmament; and if he will make a statement. [64614]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are committed to the measures set out in the Strategic Defence Review, and are pursuing these with a wide range of interested parties. In particular, we will participate fully in forthcoming negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and on a verification Protocol to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and are working for the successful completion of talks on the adaptation of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

  United Nations (Subscriptions)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America concerning the payment of arrears to the United Nations. [64616]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last raised this issue with Madeleine Albright early last year. Since then we have used our Presidencies of the EU and the G8, and numerous other contacts at ministerial and official level, to urge the US quickly to settle its arrears to the UN. We will continue to raise this issue with the US Administration and Congress when we judge this will be effective.

  Burma
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage democracy in Burma. [64617]
  435
  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) in the House today,Official Report, columns 701–02.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has reached a conclusion on the citizenship rights of St. Helenans. [64621]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell),Official Report, column 689.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he proposes to have with representatives of Pakistan and India on their forthcoming discussions about Kashmir. [64622]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell),Official Report, column 695.

  Russia (Weapons Command and Control)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has received from the Russian Government about the integrity of its command and control over its weapons of mass destruction. [64623]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have not received any direct assurances. We have, however, taken careful note of statements made by senior Russian representatives assuring the safety and control of Russia's weapons of mass destruction, including a statement of 25 November made by the Russian Minister for Atomic Energy, Mr. Adamov.

  Dubai
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Dubai. [64624]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our relations with Dubai, as with the United Arab Emirates as a whole, are very close. We work together closely on a range of international issues. In addition, British exports to Dubai were worth over £900 million in 1997. Despite the general down-turn in the global economy 1998 saw another strong trade performance with UK exports until the end of October alone worth over £1.3 billion. We expect a similar result this year.

  Embassies (Business Promotion)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in improving the business promotion activities of British embassies. [64605]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There is a number of initiatives in progress to strengthen further the export promotion services offered by our 219 commercial posts overseas. Implementation of Export Forum recommendations has 436
  given a sharper focus on priority markets, and following the Comprehensive Spending Review we will be creating over 120 new commercial slots overseas. To strengthen our professionalism we have increased interchange between the private sector and FCO/DTI staff and refocused staff training and development programmes. Our expanded Quality Management System shows increased levels of customer satisfaction. 1999 will see further improved levels of service provision with greater use of information technology/Internet based services by overseas commercial posts based on the TradeUk service launched in September 1998.

  South Africa (Trade Negotiations)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress in the EU-South Africa trade negotiations. [65659]

  Ms Quin
  We remain actively committed to finalising a Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and South Africa. We regret that the deadline agreed at the Cardiff European Council for conclusion of the negotiations by the end of 1998 was not met. The Vienna European Council in December 1998 called for the negotiations to be finalised as soon as possible, and no later than the informal Council to be held in March 1999. We will continue to press for a rapid and liberal outcome which honours the EU' s commitments to help the South African transition from apartheid, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reiterated to Deputy President Mbeki during his recent visit to South Africa.

  British Council (Damascus)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of recent damage to the British Council offices in Damascus. [65386]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: The cost of the damage to the British Council property in Damascus is still being evaluated.

  Mr. Bruce Harris
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Guatemalan Government concerning the legal case of Mr. Bruce Harris; and if he will make a statement. [65912]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our Ambassador in Guatemala City has raised the case of Bruce Harris and made known our concerns to the President of the Guatemalan Supreme Court, the President of the Guatemalan Presidential Commission on Human Rights and to the Guatemalan Fiscal General. We shall continue to follow the case closely and to make known our concern to the Guatemalan authorities that the case is conducted in conformity with the human rights standards to which Guatemala is committed under its domestic law and international obligations.

  Gibraltar (Fishing)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the extent of British waters around Gibraltar. [65505]
  437
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: British waters extend to a limit of three nautical miles around Gibraltar. The limit is restricted to two nautical miles on the west side, in the Bay of Algeciras, where a median line exists between British and Spanish waters. I have placed copies of a map showing territorial waters in the Gibraltar area in the Libraries of the House.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of Spanish fishing boats based in Algeciras Bay. [65510]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: We do not have a reliable figure. We are aware of 33 fishing vessels based in Algeciras port which have been sighted and recorded as entering British waters around Gibraltar. Similar numbers of other vessels based in both La Linea (also in Algeciras Bay) and La Atunara (to the east of Gibraltar) have also been seen in British waters.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many incursions into British waters around Gibraltar have been made by Spanish fishing boats in each of the last three years. [65509]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: The royal Gibraltar Police recorded 520 occasions on which Spanish fishing boats entered Gibraltar waters in 1998. Detailed records were not kept in previous years.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many arrests of Spanish fishermen unlawfully fishing in British waters around Gibraltar have been made in each of the last three years. [65508]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: Figures for the arrest of Spanish Fishermen for illegal fishing in British waters around Gibraltar are as follows:

  1996: None

  1997: 4 fishermen in one incident

  1998: 6 fishermen in two incidents.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the definition of the status quo with regard to the activities of Spanish fishing boats in British waters around Gibraltar. [65507]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: Between 1991 and 1997, Spanish fishermen entered Gibraltar waters and fished in moderate numbers, kept away from the harbour and Admiralty waters, and respected the authority of the law enforcement agencies. We have been seeking to return to that situation, including through discussion with the Spanish authorities.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has evaluated of the use by Spanish fishermen in British waters around Gibraltar of unlawful fishing equipment. [65506]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: Section 10(b) of the Gibraltar Nature Protection Ordinance 1991 provides that the use of, inter alia, any seine or gill net or any pot or device for raking of sea bed, for the purpose of killing or taking any wild animal, constitutes an offence. The use of any fishing equipment other than fishing lines is therefore unlawful. Spanish fishing boats have used a variety of nets and rakes.
  438
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Spanish Foreign Minister on the possibility of a licensing and quota agreement for Spanish fishing boats in British waters around Gibraltar. [66247]

  Ms Quin
  I have discussed the fishing dispute on several occasions with the Spanish Minister for European Affairs. In these discussions, the possibility of a licensing regime has been raised as one option for the way forward.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance (Emergency Calls)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that the telephone network in Lancashire is millennium compliant, with particular reference to emergency calls. [66025]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: In Lancashire, as elsewhere in the UK, Oftel has responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of the core telecommunications network and has established a Year 2000 project to monitor and assess the telecommunications industry's preparations. Oftel has taken steps to ensure that telecoms services are not disrupted over the millennium. All the main network operators, who are co-operating with Oftel and the Home Office, are taking the issue seriously, and have outlined their plans to meet this challenge. The main network operators already have sophisticated systems in place to safeguard the provision of emergency services over their networks and their current work on the Millennium Bug is building on the resilience already built in to these companies' systems. Oftel is keeping the preparations of the network operators under review.

  Action 2000 is working closely with Oftel to ensure rigorous assessment programmes are in place, and a peer review of the telecom operators is already being undertaken, permitting the industry's most technically able experts to collaborate in checking peer companies' systems. It is difficult to make a precise assessment of the likelihood of interruption. Oftel expects that the principal sectors of the industry will be Year 2000 compliant during the first half of 1999.

  Miller Dywidag
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the official trading status of Miller Dywidag Joint Venture. [66337]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Companies House has no record of Miller Dywidag as having incorporated status.

  Ministerial Appointments
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was appointed; when he received his first red box; and when he first went to his departmental office. [65622]
  439
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 January 1999): The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was appointed on 28 July 1998. He first went to the Department on 29 July 1998 and received his first red box on 30 July 1998.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister for Science was appointed; when he received his first red box; and when he first went to his departmental office. [65621]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: The Minister for Science was appointed on 28 July. He received his first Ministerial box on Tuesday 11 August and first went to his departmental office on 30 July.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry was appointed; when he received his first red box; and when he first went to his departmental office. [65624]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry was appointed on 4 January 1999. He has not received any red boxes to date, preferring to work from the Department. He first went into his departmental office on 5 January 1999.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was appointed; when he received his first red box; and when he first went to his departmental office. [65623]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: I was appointed on 23 December 1998. I received my first red box on Christmas Eve, having been in my departmental office during the course of that day.

  BAe-GEC Marconi
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the proposed merger of BAe and GEC Marconi to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [65749]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: In the event of such a proposal, it would be necessary to determine whether the merger fell for consideration by the Commission under the EC Merger Regulation, or by the UK authorities under the Fair Trading Act 1973. If a merger fell for consideration under the Fair Trading Act, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would decide whether or not to refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. Each case is considered on its own merits.

  Competition (Defence Industries)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the purposes of the proposed Competition Bill will include the creation and encouragement of competition in the United Kingdom in the defence industries. [66330]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Competition Act will establish a more effective regime to deter and tackle anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant market position widely across the economy, including within the defence sector.
  440
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the compatibility of EU policy on defence industrial company mergers with his approach to competition matters in the United Kingdom. [66331]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: We share the European Commission's view of the importance of taking into account competition policy issues in considering restructuring in the defence industry. Any merger proposals will be considered on their merits by the relevant competition authorities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 18 November regarding mineshafts. [66585]

  Mr. Battle
  After having the issues raised in my hon. Friend's letter fully looked into, I replied on 14 January.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 14 December regarding trades union legislation. [66584]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I will write very shortly.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the term "average cost", with reference to flights by Ministers in his Department, refers to the average cost per passenger; [64721]

  (2) what was the total cumulative cost to his Department of ministerial use of RAF flights in the year to 1 May 1997. [64737]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: As my answer of 19 November 1998, Official Report, column 838, made clear, Ministers are required under the terms of the Ministerial Code always to make efficient and cost effective travel arrangements. The rules on travel for Ministers are the same as those that applied to the previous Administration. A comparison of travel by Ministers on RAF flights between the 16 month period between 2 May 1997 and 30 September 1998 is not directly comparable with the 12 months of the previous administration.

  The average cost contained in my earlier reply referred to the cost per trip and not the individual cost per passenger. This Department was created from the former Departments of the Environment and Transport in June 1997 and also has the additional responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister. A direct comparison with previous years is not therefore possible. I am advised that the total cost of Ministerial flights provided by the RAF for the Departments of the Environment and Transport in the year to 1 May 1997 was £6,302. Cabinet Office was responsible for any expenditure incurred by the then Deputy Prime Minister.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [65674]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has received over 2,000 formal responses to our consultation paper,Access to the Open Countryside in England & Wales. In addition, since the closing date for responses to the consultation paper on 5 June, approximately 370 letters have been received from members of the public on this subject, and approximately 400 letters from Members of Parliament. Ministerial colleagues and I have held meetings with a number of organisations representing both landowners and recreational users.

  Sewerage Network
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the public and private sewerage network is currently subject to(a) infiltration and (b) exfiltration. [65885]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department does not collect this information. Under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991, sewerage undertakers are responsible for the effectual drainage of their areas and for maintaining their pipework. From meetings held with the water and sewerage industry last year, there appears to be no evidence that exfiltration or infiltration in public sewers is causing any major problems. I understand that Water UK will be carrying out research in this area later this year.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the necessary change in investment in the sewerage system following the inclusion of the condition of sewerage assets in the new sustainable development indicators. [65886]

  Mr. Meale
  Levels of investment in the public sewerage system are a matter for sewerage undertakers and the Director General of Water Services. In "Raising the Quality" (September 1998), we published guidance to the Director General of Water Services which covered sewer maintenance as well as investment in new assets. The Director General subsequently published his own forward look at the necessary investment programmes of water companies and their price implications in "Prospects for Prices" (October 1998).

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the water companies OFWAT has penalised for failing to meet their targets on flooding from sewers and collapses(a) between 1990 and 1995 and (b) from 1995 to date. [65887]

  Mr. Meale
  Companies' performance is reported each year in the Director General of Water Services' annual Report on Levels of Service. The 1997–98 Report shows that the proportion of properties at risk from sewer flooding more than twice in every ten years has fallen substantially from 0.13 per cent. in 1990–91 to 0.06 per cent. in 1997–98.
  442
  The annual Report also explains regulatory action taken in respect of companies about whose performance the Director has concerns. Where the Director has concerns over levels of sewer flooding, he requires the company to take remedial action. The Director does not currently have powers to impose fines, but has indicated his intention to take sewer flooding and other aspects of companies' past performance into account when setting price limits.

  Sewer flooding that affects customers' properties is penalised by compensation available to customers in the Guaranteed Standards Scheme. In 1997–98, payments of up to a maximum of £1,000 were made to 4,367 customers who made claims.

  There are no targets for sewer collapses but they are taken into account when OFWAT assesses the serviceability to customers of the companies assets. Serviceability is in turn taken into account when the Director sets companies' price limits.

  Water Extraction
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many gallons of water have been extracted by Thames Water from the River Darenth in each of the last five years; and how many gallons it is estimated will be extracted in each of the next five years. [66008]

  Mr. Meale
  Thames Water Utilities Ltd. make no direct abstractions from the River Darenth itself but the company does abstract groundwater from the river's catchment. The actual and forecast groundwater abstractions by the company from this catchment are set out below. Phase 1 of the Darenth Action Plan came into operation on 1 January 1997 and the forecast figures assume that Phase 2 will become operational, as planned, in 2001–02.

  million gallons

  Year

  Actual abstraction

  1993–94

  5002.3

  1994–95

  6231.7

  1995–96

  6339.8

  1996–97

  5499.6

  1997–98

  4792.1

  million gallons

  Year

  Forecast abstraction

  1998–99

  4818.0

  1999–2000

  4818.0

  2000–01

  4818.0

  2001–02

  4095.0

  2002–03

  4095.0

  Unadopted Roads
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is his estimate of the number of unadopted roads in England; [65896]

  (2) what is his current estimate of the number of unadopted roads made up in each of the last five years, excluding newly-built estates; [65897]
  443
  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of people who live on unadopted roads in England. [65895]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to a written question on the same subject on 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 118, from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).

  Given that no central records of unadopted roads exist, it is also not possible to give an overall estimate for England of the number of people who live in them.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the financial allocation made to local authorities for the making up of unadopted roads in the local government settlement 1999–2000. [65898]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Financial allocations to local authorities in the 1999–2000 Revenue Support Grant settlement are based on characteristics of local authorities including the lengths of adopted roads weighted to reflect their classifications. RSG is however an unhypothecated grant. The settlement takes no account of unadopted roads, whose upkeep is, in the majority of cases, the responsibility of the frontagers.

  Previously undeveloped land used for new housing

  Year

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  19962

  Average 1992–1996

  Percentage of new dwellings1 built on land not previously developed

  47

  48

  51

  47

  47

  48

  Percentage of land used for new housing that was not previously developed

  54

  53

  56

  52

  53

  54

  1Excludes conversions

  2Provisional estimate

  Source:

  Land Use Change Statistics

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responses he has received to his consultation paper on a waste strategy, "Less Waste: More Value"; what is the time scale for implementation of that waste strategy; what conclusions he has reached on the subjects of(a) waste minimisation and (b) recycling; and if he will make a statement. [65769]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government's consultation paper on reviewing the waste management strategy for England and Wales, "Less Waste: More Value", was launched by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 9 June 1998. During the consultation period over 28,000 copies of the document were distributed. The consultation period ended on 25 September 1998, by which time 652 submissions had been received by my Department, including 267 submissions from local authorities. In addition, 137 members of the public wrote to Ministers following the launch of the consultation document and its attendant publicity in the media.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish his consultation paper on the treatment of contaminated land. [66091]

  Mr. Meale
  Our target date for publication of a consultation paper, which will set out a revised draft of the statutory guidance to be issued under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is the end of February at the latest.

  New Housing
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of new housing was built on greenfield sites in each year from 1992 to 1998. [65759]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no specific definition of 'greenfield' land. The information available relates to housing built on land that has not been previously developed. The Department's Land Use Change Statistics for England provide information on (a) the percentage of new dwellings (excluding conversions) built on land not previously developed for urban uses and (b) the proportion of land used for new housing that was not previously developed. The table shows results for the above measures for the period 1992 to 1996 (the most recent available).

  "Less Waste: More Value" set out a range of options and questions on what policies the Government should pursue, in order to:
  encourage, and emphasise the importance of, actions to minimise the waste that we produce (both in terms of volume and hazardousness); and
  substantially increase the recycling and composting rates for waste, as part of an integrated strategy which also addresses the issue of waste that it does not make sense to recycle.

  We are now in the process of developing these policies, which will be published for consultation, as part of the draft of the new waste strategy for England and Wales. The Government intend to publish a draft of the new waste strategy during the Spring of 1999 and will consult with all interested parties during the Summer. We plan to publish a final version of the new waste strategy as a Command Paper before the end of 1999.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has sought regarding the strategy to be pursued to achieve the Government's waste recycling targets for Greater London; how the Government intend to achieve these targets without placing greater reliance on landfill sites;
  445
  what is his strategy regarding incineration and the development of combined heat and power; and if he will make a statement. [65771]

  Mr. Meale
  The new Mayor of London will have a duty to prepare an integrated municipal waste management strategy for London. This will have regard to the national waste strategy, due to be published later this year, and local authority waste recycling plans. In the meantime, the Government are providing London Boroughs with £12 million under the Capital Challenge Programme to boost recycling levels in London.

  Waste to energy incineration must be considered in the context of an integrated approach to waste management, which encourages waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. Where waste incineration with energy recovery is the best practicable environmental option, the potential for incorporating CHP should always be considered in order to maximise the energy which is recovered.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role he envisages for incineration in achieving his waste strategy for London; what plans he has to place a moratorium on the development or expansion of incinerator capacity; what advice his Department will issue to local authorities on(a) the scale of any future facilities and (b) the length of disposal contracts for incineration; and if he will make a statement. [65770]

  Mr. Meale
  Waste incineration is currently an integral part of waste disposal in London and in the consultation paper issued last year on the national waste strategy the Government took the view that there was likely to be a need for higher levels of incineration with energy recovery in future. We do not plan to place a moratorium on the development or expansion of incinerator capacity in London, nor do we plan to issue advice to local authorities on the scale of future facilities or the length of disposal contracts.

  Bus Fuel Rebate Scheme
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was paid(a) in total and (b) to individual bus companies under the bus fuel rebate scheme in each of the last five years. [66017]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested in(a) is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  220

  1994–95

  224

  1995–96

  229

  1996–97

  228

  1997–98

  227

  Expenditure is expected to be £270 million in this financial year, reflecting the increase in the rate of rebate in line with this year's increase in duty.

  The amount paid to individual bus companies is regarded as commercially confidential.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Her Majesty's Government support the application of the Biosafety Protocol's proposed procedures for Advanced Informed Agreement to agricultural commodities and commodities designated for processing, where such commodities contain genetically modified organisms or parts thereof; and if he will oppose any attempts in the protocol negotiations to exclude such commodities from the AIA procedures. [66036]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government's view is that the Protocol should cover the transboundary movement of all living modified organisms (LMOs), including LMOs that are agricultural commodities and commodities intended for processing. The Advanced Informed Agreement procedures should apply to transboundary movements of LMOs intended for deliberate release, including commodities. The UK is still considering its position on appropriate procedures for commodities intended for processing and will press hard for adequate coverage to secure environmental safety. Commodities that consist of non-living products of LMOs should not be covered by the protocol since the scope set out in the mandate from the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity is to develop a protocol focusing specifically on the transboundary movement of living modified organisms.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Her Majesty's Government supports proposals to include provisions in the Biosafety Protocol to allow countries to take socio-economic considerations into account when reaching a decision on whether to grant advanced informed agreement to allow the proposed import of a GMO to proceed. [65963]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government consider that the basis for decision-making under the Protocol should be a scientific risk assessment, but recognise that some countries may wish to consider socio-economic aspects in reaching their decision on whether to grant advance informed agreement.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whether his Department will support proposals to include provisions for a regime for strict liability within the Biosafety Protocol. [65962]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government acknowledge the importance of the issue of liability and redress in the context of damage to biological diversity and its relevance to the Biosafety Protocol. For this reason, the UK and the European Commission last year hosted a small international workshop to explore the issues arising in relation to the Protocol. The Government consider that provisions for a regime for strict liability cannot be developed in the short time remaining to complete the negotiations. I hope, however, that it will be possible at the final meeting of the Biosafety Working Group developing the Protocol to agree how the matter might be taken forward, bearing in mind the ongoing discussions in the context of Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1998,Official Report, column 194, over the four year period under consideration (a) how many driving instructors were accepted for registration, (b) how many of these were subsequently removed from registration within (i) six months, (ii) one year, (iii) 18 months, and (iv) two years, (c) what was the average period that those removed from the register had previously been registered, and (d) how many people paid examination fees to the Driving Standards Agency. [65725]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: During the four years up to 30 November 1998, 7,225 new instructors have been added to the Register of Approved Driving Instructors (ADI). Of these six have been subsequently removed as a result of failing a check test of their instructional ability following three successive check test failures. None were removed in the first 18 months of their registration. Three were removed within their first two years of registration, and the other three were removed between two and four years of registration. The average period they were on the Register was 26 months.

  To join the register, a person has to pass a three part examination—a written test, a practical test of driving ability and a practical test of instructional ability for which the fees are currently £50 for the written test and £62 for practical test. During the same 4 year period, some 24,000 people started the ADI qualifying process, taking a total of 46,000 written tests and the Driving Standards Agency also conducted 58,164 practical tests (figures for the two practical tests are not compiled separately). Some of the tests would have been further attempts by unsuccessful candidates.

  Chapter 2 Aircraft
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions from what date all Chapter 2 aircraft are currently planned to be banned from United Kingdom airports; and what proposals there are in(a) the UK and (b) the EU to review that date. [66149]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  From 1 April 2002, Chapter 2 aircraft will be banned from UK airports other than in the most exceptional circumstances. There are no proposals in the UK or the EU to review that date.

  London Underground
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the amounts of compensation payable by London Underground as a result of the breakdown of the tube system on 12 January. [66390]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Statistics regarding compensation claims arising from specific incidents are not routinely analysed by London Underground. It is too early to establish how many people will request compensation for service problems experienced on 12 January, An average claim under the Customer Charter is, however, £2.60.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what rules or guidance his Department has to govern the(a) formal and (b) informal interaction between his civil servants and commercial lobbyists. [66215]

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

  Pesticides
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the relative effectiveness of economic instruments over other measures designed to minimise pesticide use; [66213]

  (2) what plans he has for a compensation regime for farmers and agricultural producers to offset the effects of a pesticide tax. [66229]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have commissioned extensive research work on economic instruments as a component of its pesticide minimisation policy to be used in combination with other measures. In considering the possible introduction of a pesticide tax, we shall look very carefully at the potential impact on farmers and other pesticide users.

  Bus Fuel Duty Rebate
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proportion of bus operators receiving bus fuel duty rebate are using standard diesel fuel; [66104]

  (2) how much is spent annually through the bus fuel duty rebate in supporting bus operators using standard diesel fuel. [66106]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Most of the claims for bus fuel duty rebate are for use of standard diesel fuel. The estimated spend this financial year is £267 million.

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage bus operators in receipt of bus fuel duty rebate to adopt ultra low sulphur diesel fuel. [66105]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: A number of possible changes to bus Fuel Duty Rebate, to encourage the use of cleaner fuels and vehicles, are being examined with a view to consultation in due course.

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bus operators are receiving bus fuel duty rebate. [66103]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: There are currently 1,800 claimants receiving bus fuel duty rebate. This figure includes subsidiaries or other operating units of larger companies.

  School Transport Working Group
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list
  449
  the members of the working group on school transport; and if he will publish the remit of the group, its target deliverables and timetable for action. [65936]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: I announced the membership and remit of the School Travel Advisory Group (STAG) in a press notice on 18 December (Working together to improve the journey to school). A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  STAG will work to identify practical ways of reducing car use and improving safety on the journey to school, with a view to making a report to Ministers. It will also oversee the preparation of guidance for local authorities and schools. It is hoped to complete both in the course of the year.

  Water Meters
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate how many people will financially(a) benefit and (b) be worse off as a result of the introduction of water meters; if he will provide this information (i) for the population as a whole and (ii) for the population over state retirement age; and if he will make a statement. [66382]

  Mr. Meale
  The following estimates are taken from the report, "Incidence Effects of Charging for Domestic Water and Sewerage Services" published by my Department in July 1998. This reported the results of modelling work undertaken on behalf of the Department by Maxwell Stamp Plc. The figures relate to households in England and Wales where there is a choice between measured and unmeasured options. The estimates assume no consequent reduction in consumption or tariff rebalancing. The outcome depends on the tariffs adopted by companies for unmeasured and for measured charging.

  (i) Under the current tariffs of water undertakers: 40 per cent. of households would pay less on a measured than they would on an unmeasured basis of charging. 55 per cent. of pensioner households would pay less on a measured than unmeasured basis of charging.

  (ii) Assuming a measured basis without standing charge: 44 per cent. of households would pay less on a measured than they would on an unmeasured basis of charging. 63 per cent. of pensioner households would pay less on a measured than unmeasured basis of charging.

  The Government's policy, reflected in the Water Industry Bill, is that domestic consumers presently charged on an unmeasured basis should have the option of requesting a measured basis of charging. The Bill would also give new rights to customers paying an unmeasured charge, to continue paying on an unmeasured basis on their present homes where they are using water only for essential household use.

  Valuation Appeals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many valuation appeals have been lodged since 11 March 1998 in which the appellant cites the decision in the Benjamin vs Anston Properties Ltd. case. [66511]
  450
  Ms Armstrong
  A total of some 135,000 proposals to alter the rating list were made during the period 1 April to 31 December 1998. It is not possible to say how many of these proposals will rely on the Lands Tribunal decision in Benjamin vs Anston Properties in support of their proposals.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral statement of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 71, if he will publish the evidence and working papers on which he based his estimate of the number of properties which might be in a sufficient state of disrepair to encourage owners to appeal against their valuation for rating purposes. [66513]

  Ms Armstrong
  It is not possible to say with any accuracy how many properties are in disrepair at any one time. However, the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) believe that most non-domestic properties will require routine repairs to be carried out within a 3 to 5 year cycle, and it is likely that some properties would not have such work carried out within this normal repair cycle.

  The VOA estimate that a maximum of 15 per cent. of the total of 1.7 million non-domestic properties may fall into this category at any one point in time, and that their condition may be such that the occupiers may seek to obtain a reduction in their rate liability as a result.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information an appellant must supply in order to lodge a valuation appeal. [66512]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information to be provided in making a proposal to alter the rating list is specified in regulation 5A of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/291 as amended). A proposal should include the name and address of the proposer and the capacity in which he makes the proposal; the identity of the property, and the respects in which it is proposed that the list be altered. The proposal should also include a statement of the grounds on which the proposal is made, although this does not restrict the grounds on which an appeal can be argued at a Valuation Tribunal.

  Air Services Agreement
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects negotiations with the United States towards a new air services agreement to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [66640]

  Dr. Reid
  Negotiation with the US broke off last November. It is not known at this stage when formal negotiations will resume or be completed.

  A1 (Tyneside)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which categories of traffic he proposes to ban from the A1 corridor between Lobley Mill and North Brunton, Newcastle; if that ban will extend to the New Tyne Crossing; over what hours the ban will be in force; what alternative routes he
  451
  proposes; when the ban is to be introduced; and what consultation he proposes to have with local residents and schools that may be affected. [66600]

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

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 19 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked Lawrie Haynes, the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. I am replying in Lawrie's absence from the office. You asked "Which categories of traffic he proposes to ban from the A1 corridor between Lobley Hill and North Brunton, Newcastle; if that ban will extend to the New Tyne Crossing; over what hours the ban will be in force; what alternative routes he proposes; when the ban is to be introduced; and what consultation he proposes to have with local residents and schools that may be affected".
  You will know of the considerable peak hour congestion that occurs on the A1 in Tyneside. It is felt that slow moving vehicles exacerbate this problem and we propose to introduce a ban, by means of an experimental Temporary Traffic Order this Spring.
  It is proposed that any vehicle which cannot attain a speed of 30mph on the level in free-flowing conditions will be prohibited from entering the A1 Gateshead and Newcastle Western By-Passes. This will include the sections between Lobley Hill, the Tyne Crossing at Blaydon and North Brunton. The ban, when introduced, will be in force between the hours of 7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm from Monday to Friday and is expected to be introduced this Spring.
  Consultations will be held with local authorities and other representative bodies with the issue or alternative routes being discussed before the ban is introduced. This temporary scheme will be implemented under the powers of an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order. During this time we will monitor the impact on traffic movements and views of any interested individuals or organisations will be welcomed. Any comments received will be taken into account before deciding whether to make the ban permanent.

  Clean Development
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the letter of 22 September 1998 (IYR/PSO/16123/98) from the Minister for the Environment to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will give examples of what has been achieved in making progress towards clean development mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol. [65394]

  Mr. Meacher
  In Buenos Aires, Parties agreed to give priority to the clean development mechanism (CDM) within the wider work programme on the Kyoto Protocol. The aim is to have all the modalities and procedures established by the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6—which will probably be in late 2000). The UNFCCC secretariat will convene two technical workshops on, the CDM, and the other Kyoto mechanisms, before April of next year.

  The EU will submit further proposals on the CDM to the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by the end of March as input to these workshops.

  Air Freight
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has had from Sir Crispin Tickell on comparisons of cost in carrying(a) air freighted
  452
  vegetables and (b) other air freight between (i) Scotland and London and (ii) Asia/Africa/Caribbean/South America and London. [66495]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None.

  World Environment Organisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has had from Sir Crispin Tickell on the concept of a World Environment Organisation. [66494]

  Mr. Meale
  I have not received any direct representations from Sir Crispin Tickell on this matter. I am aware, however, that he has spoken publicly on a number of occasions about such an initiative as a counterweight to the World Trade Organisation.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision in respect of the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for the boundaries of the electoral areas for the Assembly of the Greater London Authority. [66596]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have decided to accept the Commission's recommendations. Subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill as introduced, they will be implemented by secondary legislation after Royal Assent. A copy of the recommendations has been deposited in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Badger Culling Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what auditing of the Government's badger culling scheme has been carried out since 2 December; and if he will make a statement. [64837]

  Mr. Rooker
  Systematic management checks were undertaken in December last year to assess compliance with trial procedures and their uniform application. In addition, members of the Independent Scientific Group, who are monitoring the trial, undertook field visits to check the work.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much in percentage terms(a) the highest rate of grant for coastal defence work and (b) the normal rate of grant have been reduced since 1997. [66042]

  Mr. Morley
  The rates of grant available to maritime district councils for approved capital coast protection works have remained unchanged at 35 per cent., 45 per cent., 55 per cent., 65 per cent. and 75 per cent. since 1992. The formula used to determine which rate of grant is applicable to specific works was subject to significant change with effect from 1 April 1997, with a view to bringing the direct government contribution to the national programme within the range 50 to 55 per cent. The announcement of that change was made in November 1996
  453
  by the previous administration. The only change to the formula since then was an adjustment by 2 per cent, in line with inflation, made with effect from 1 April 1998.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish his proposals for coastal protection co-ordination for the rest of the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review. [66040]

  Mr. Morley
  Coast protection authorities are encouraged to work within the policy framework published in the "Strategy for Flood and Coastal Defence in England and Wales". As confirmed in the response to the Agriculture Select Committee's report on Flood and Coastal Defence, the Government consider there is scope to enhance the effectiveness of the current arrangements, to improve the co-ordination that takes place and to help ensure delivery of the national strategy. This will be achieved by developing the way in which the Environment Agency exercises its current general flood defence supervisory duty and seeking to establish national targets for all operating authorities. These targets will be published in due course.

  The Ministry's concept of Shoreline Management Plans and strategic planning was developed to encourage operating authorities to work together, to consider the impact of their schemes on neighbouring authorities and overall to improve decision-making. The first generation of such Plans is now nearing completion, and all should be published by Spring 1999.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate a review of the Halcrow study on coastal defence. [66043]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry commissioned Halcrows, as lead consultants, to produce the "Coast Protection Survey of England"; it was published in 1994. The survey was reviewed in 1995 and 1996, but these updates showed that the rate of change in the state of defences did not warrant such frequent reviews. Action in 1997 was therefore confined to a review of authorities' plans in respect of defences identified as being in most urgent need of repair. Consideration will now be given to the future development of an asset database of all flood and coastal defences irrespective of operating authority.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which Minister is in overall charge of the UK's strategy for meeting the challenge of climate change and sinkage in coastal areas. [66045]

  Mr. Morley
  Within Government, overall responsibility for climate change rests with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. So far as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned, I oversee policies, including the implications for flood and coastal defence, though my right hon. Friend the Minister has overall policy responsibility.

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which EU countries have implemented EU directive 95/29/EC on live animal transport; and what representations he has made to those which have not. [65735]

  Mr. Morley
  By the end of 1998, the majority of Member States had implemented the Directive. The crucial point, with live exports from Great Britain in mind, is enforcement of the rules on the ground. We repeatedly remind the other Member States concerned of their responsibilities in this respect.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) live sheep and (b) live pigs were exported from (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the port of Dover in 1998 for (1) slaughter, (2) further fattening and (3) breeding; and how many (x) live sheep and (y) live pigs in each of these categories were exported to each individual country of destination. [65787]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested by my hon. Friend will take some time to put together. With his permission, I will write to him once it is available.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospects for decentralising the control of fisheries to zonal management committees within EU member states. [66408]

  Mr. Morley
  Zonal management committees are one of the ideas being examined by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The Federations have been assessing their ideas with their counterparts in other Member States and I shall be interested to see the outcome of these contacts.

  Abattoirs (Inspection Charges)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of increased inspection charges on small abattoirs. [66158]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government recognise that increases in veterinary supervision levels in small abattoirs will have significant cost implications for their operators, and we have received many representations on this issue. The impact on individual premises will depend on the circumstances prevailing at those premises, including the current level of veterinary supervision, the size and throughput of the premises, the complexity and standard of hygiene of operations, and the type of animal being slaughtered. We continue to keep the matter under review and, bearing in mind our EU legal obligations, to seek to minimise the impact on abattoir operators wherever possible.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Teacher Shortages
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to deal with the shortage of teachers of mathematics, modern languages and science in secondary schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government recognise the problems that currently exist in some parts of the country in recruiting teachers of those subjects. Our Green Paper on teachers, published in December, will, I hope, over time, transform recruitment by tackling many of the fundamental issues which my noble friend, with his considerable personal experience, has highlighted over the years. In the shorter term, in October we announced a package of measures to address particular recruitment difficulties through financial incentives for maths and science teachers. We are also funding recruitment advisers, based in local authorities, who will work with schools in difficult recruitment areas to generate creative strategies targeting local recruitment needs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I welcome the constructive nature of my noble friend's reply. Is she aware that the most important incentive in this matter is financial? Is she further aware that the payment of differential salaries in schools can cause considerable difficulties? If the Government decide to do something like that—I think that that is the only way in which the problem will be solved, at least in the short term—will the Minister ensure that the teachers' unions are fully consulted?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I acknowledge what my noble friend has said about the importance of incentives in recruiting teachers in these shortage subjects. It is for that reason that a £5,000 incentive is being introduced for teachers of maths and science—£2,500 while they are in training doing a PGCE, and £2,500 in their first years of teaching. It is important to consult the teachers' unions on such matters. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Minister for School Standards are doing just that.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the scheme of Oscars for teachers has yet got off the ground and, if so, is it having any effect?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Puttnam is heavily involved in the development of
466
that scheme. It is not yet in place, but plans are well advanced. It will be a very important encouragement for teachers who have performed supremely well in the classroom.
Lord Peston: My Lords, bearing in mind that among the things that this country is exceptionally good at are mathematics and the sciences—the man who solved de Fermat's last theorem was born in this country and is now at Princeton, and we have a disproportionate number of Nobel prize winners in, say, chemistry—does my noble friend agree that if we are to achieve that sort of thing in the future we have to look very much long term? Is she aware that it bothers some of us that policy—not particularly of this Government, but generally—has lived totally in the short term as regards education? Does she agree that we need to look ahead to see from where the teachers needed to produce the great scientists and mathematicians of the next century will come?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is extremely important that we invest in science and mathematics, not only in our schools but in our colleges and universities. The Government have put an additional £1.4 billion into scientific research, which has been widely welcomed by the science community. However, the Green Paper on teachers seeks to provide a long-term solution to recruitment and retention problems in our schools by rewarding teachers—and in particular successful teachers—more than we have done in the past. It is also important that the morale of teachers should be raised. We should recognise just how important their role is in our society.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what possibilities there are in the short term for recruiting teachers from abroad? I am thinking particularly of countries such as Germany where all teachers are well-equipped in English. There is an over-supply of teachers from the universities and training colleges in those countries at the moment who are desperately looking for jobs, and who would make excellent teachers, not only of modern languages, but of mathematics and science.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government welcome teachers from the European Union who are properly qualified and who speak English more than adequately so that they can cope with classroom situations in the UK. It would be wrong for us to become over-dependent on teachers from abroad. The Government's top priority is to ensure that we recruit enough teachers in the UK. We should not exaggerate the shortages that exist at the moment. There are more than 400,000 teachers in this country and the current level of shortage is less than 2,500 unfilled posts or approximately 0.7 per cent. of the total teaching force.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, has the Minister listened carefully to the very practical advice of her noble friends? I am sure that many on this side of the House felt that rhetoric rather than practicality

467
governed her answers. Do careers advisers and Oscars solve the problem? The Minister's recent answer does not address the scene that her noble friend described, which is that although there is a relatively small shortage, it is in crucial subjects such as languages and mathematics. Does the Minister share my opinion that the answers she has given do not reflect the full enormity of the problem that her noble friends have pointed out?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, of course I do not. While I am always willing to accept advice from my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Peston, there was certainly no rhetoric in the answer that I gave. The Government have already announced a whole variety of different approaches to rewarding teachers more effectively. We have brought out a Green Paper on which we are consulting. That is a great deal more than the Conservative government of which the noble Lord was a supporter did in 18 years.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister really aware of the crisis in the teaching of physics and mathematics? Is she aware that well over 60 per cent. of those recruited to teach physics and mathematics get a third-class degree or worse? This is a question of motivating and inspiring our young people in schools. If we do not do that, the problem will become self-perpetuating.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I have already said, the Government take the problem of recruitment and retention in the teaching profession extremely seriously, especially in shortage subjects such as physics and mathematics. It is not just a matter of filling the seat behind the teacher's desk. It is also a matter of quality and of encouraging young people to enter teaching, which is a great profession. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government will be working extremely hard to try to recruit the most able young people from our colleges and universities to become teachers.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us who have been in touch with teachers all our lives believe that payment by results is the worst possible way to recruit more teachers and to retain those we already have? That was abandoned 80 years ago after it had thoroughly demoralised the whole teaching profession.

Road Maintenance: Cost
2.45 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any assessment has been made of the overall cost of outstanding road maintenance work throughout the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, it is generally accepted that road maintenance has suffered from past underfunding. However, there is no agreed estimate of the size of the backlog. For trunk roads in England, we have provided some extra £350 million over the next three years. There are also increases for Scottish and Welsh trunk roads. That allows adequate resources to tackle progressively outstanding maintenance on motorways and trunk roads throughout Great Britain. Local government in Great Britain has substantial discretion in setting expenditure priorities and full information on local highway condition is not available. But we are now committed to restore the cuts in maintenance of English principal roads under the control of local authorities.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that reputable non-governmental bodies have calculated on information obtained from local authorities that the backlog is in the region of £5 billion and is rising? Does he further appreciate that a crisis is developing with regard to local roads? That was recognised by the Select Committee on Transport in 1997 when it called for a 10-year plan to remove the backlog. Can the Minister say what effective action the Government will now be taking? Does he not agree that roads are the arteries of the nation and that we neglect them at our peril?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that they are one of the arteries of the nation. There are other modes of transport as well and we have an integrated approach to transport under this Government. The estimates by the Institution of Civil Engineers and by the LGA by various different means give us the figure of £5 billion to which my noble friend referred. The Government would have some problem in agreeing to that figure, but we would accept that there is a substantial backlog which reflects the decline in maintenance provided by the previous government since the early 1990s. The figures I have indicated show that we are beginning to reverse that decline both on trunk roads and local authority roads.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, have the Government carried out an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the construction of new roads on the one hand versus the cost of maintenance of existing roads on the other, bearing in mind that the construction of new roads will reduce the need for maintenance on existing roads?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are somewhat wider issues involved here. The Government have made it clear that we will engage in the construction of new roads only as a last resort measure. We believe in shifting resources to improve the flow of traffic on our existing roads. We have shifted substantial resources into the maintenance of our trunk roads in particular, in part to tackle this backlog.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, bearing in mind that the vast majority of roads are local authority roads,

469
what guarantee is there that local authorities will spend on road maintenance what is allocated to them under the standard spending assessment? What figures do the Government keep to ensure that local authorities spend the money that is allocated to them for the purpose?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is true that under the standard spending assessment, as has been the case for a number of years, local authorities have some discretion. However, we have established that current road maintenance should be a priority within local transport plans under the much tougher system of local transport planning that we are introducing. In addition, central government will be providing support for capital projects: an increase of over 40 per cent. in terms of major road maintenance works and 28 per cent. in relation to bridges for local authorities.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord referred rather coyly to an integrated transport system. Many people have been talking about such a system for many years. Will he say what he means by it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not coy at all. I was absolutely blatant. We do believe in an integrated transport policy. The White Paper that we published last year, the legislation that we shall introduce, for example, in relation to London, and the provisions that we shall bring to bear on the railways are all part of an integrated approach which covers all modes, not simply roads. Road building will not resolve our transport problems in this country.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, may I draw the Minister's attention to the recent report by the World Bank, which seems to indicate that we are spending only half the recommended amount on road maintenance? Is that not a serious cause for concern?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely conversant with what the World Bank is saying. Clearly, different formulae apply to different kinds of roads. We are developing new maintenance techniques and are providing substantial additional resources for maintenance in all road sectors, in both national and local authorities. We are beginning to tackle a serious problem.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, where roads are re-surfaced, the new surface frequently breaks down after only a few weeks? What steps are the Government taking to make certain that roads are maintained to a higher standard, so that in the long run they are cheaper to maintain?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are taking two steps. It is clear that some of the new materials have not performed as well as was anticipated. However, many of the new techniques have substantially improved the driving conditions on roads and the maintenance standards. We are also examining a "whole life" maintenance approach rather than waiting until there is
470
a serious problem before taking action. That will form part of the approach of both the Highways Agency and local authorities.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the main street in Clandon was beautifully repaired, and that for the first time in 40 years it was like driving down a billiard table? Within three weeks of the repair, men appeared with pneumatic drills and they dug a hole in the surface to put in new services. Will the Government give an undertaking that, the moment a road is repaired, someone else does not come and dig it up again so that we have to start all over again?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, regrettably, at this stage of our integrated approach I can give no immediate commitment to that effect. Local authorities and the Highways Agency need to co-ordinate matters with the utilities rather better than has been the case in the past. We will draw their attention to that point.

Advertising Targeted at Children
2.53 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to support the Government of Sweden in pressing the European Union for a ban on commercial advertising targeted at children.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not aware of any such proposal recently by the Swedish Government. The question of the impact on minors of television advertising and teleshopping will be the subject of a study shortly to be undertaken by the European Commission. It is too early to say what action, if any, the European Commission may propose as a result of that work.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, although I am rather surprised as it conflicts with information I received from the Swedish Embassy. Is the noble Lord aware of a report on family viewing, published in September by the Parenting Forum and the NSPCC, stating that 78 per cent. of respondents asked for some controls on advertising targeted at children? Does the noble Lord agree that the culture of expectation developed by advertising targeted at children impacts on the poorest families and children from the most disadvantaged families, often causing them to be bullied at school, and that they are the children who can least cope with bullying?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, so far as we are aware, the last action by the Swedish Government was in the run-up to the establishment of the Television Without Frontiers Directive in 1989. We are not aware that they have taken a position since then.

471
I have read the report referred to by the noble Lord. As a researcher, I am doubtful about the methods—a questionnaire published in Family Circle received only 220 responses. That does not give me great confidence. The only relevant recommendation that the report makes to government is that advertising regulations should take account of the age of the likely child audience. Advertising regulations by the ITC, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Radio Authority do just that.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, when this matter is under discussion, will my noble friend look into the related question of the growing use of children as sales people on television? Does he agree that childhood is a time for learning rather than earning?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be unfortunate if children's education were seriously interrupted by taking part in advertisements. However, the use of child actors, for example, and child singers is an important part of our culture. We should not be opposed to it wholesale.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that advertising is, a fortiori, a question of subsidiarity in European politics? Consequently, is the Minister satisfied that the rules relating specifically to children under the Advertising Standards Authority's British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion already provides sufficient regulation for advertisers targeting children, and therefore a ban on such advertising is not necessary?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know about a fortiori, but I certainly agree with the noble Lord. It is the Government's view that self-regulation by the ITC, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Radio Authority is the right approach. The codes of practice are extremely detailed. I think some noble Lords would be surprised by the extent to which they restrict advertising, including advertising that is potentially damaging to children.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very difficult to distinguish between advertising on television targeted at children and that which is targeted at anyone watching television commercials?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree up to a point. I should have thought that very little toy advertising, for example, is generally targeted at adults.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge that it may be targeted at the Conservative Party. The noble Lord is right in that many clothing
472
advertisements that appear to be directed at adults are, in fact, directed at persuading adults to buy more expensive clothes for children.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that most advertising on television is dull, boring and noisy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested in the noble Lord's last point. There have been complaints that the noise level goes up during television advertisements. I do not think that I agree, but I do not pay great attention to television advertising—I tend to go and get myself a drink during the break.

BBC1 News: Scotland
2.58 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the governors of the BBC on whether there should be a Scottish-based 6 p.m. news programme on BBC1.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have had no such discussions. Within the framework of the Royal Charter and the Government's Agreement with the BBC, the corporation is independent in all programming matters.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he give definite reassurance to the BBC that future programming as regards the Scottish Parliament will be left to the professionals, without undue political interference?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe there has ever been any question of political interference with the professionals in the BBC for the Scottish Parliament or any other parliament. The BBC intends to carry out a quarterly monitoring of its new six o'clock news programme with its increased emphasis on news in all four home nations and there will be a full review by May 2000, by which time we hope that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly will have settled down.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of us who live in Scotland enjoy the national and international coverage of the news at six o'clock and that it would be a great pity if the new regime in Scotland were to be introspective and narrowly nationalistic, which might affect the news coverage of a totally Scottish programme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was the view the BBC governors took after extensive consultation, including consultation with the Broadcasting Council for Scotland. But we do not yet know to what extent the media will show interest in the Scottish Parliament, and it may well be that in the future

473

there will be changes. The point which my noble friend makes about the interest of Scottish people in news for the nation as a whole is very important.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that amid the general hysteria of the recent campaign for an exclusive six o'clock news programme for Scotland some of us recognised that having a UK news bulletin at six o'clock followed by an exclusively Scottish bulletin was an example of having our cake and eating it, which is part of the Scottish tradition, anyway? Does he welcome the fact that as a result of this campaign BBC Scotland has a larger budget which will enable it to carry out coverage of the Scottish Parliament this year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question because it enables me to say that the review of news coverage in Scotland will result in an additional £10 million of funding and an additional 50 jobs, and that is clearly very important. I believe that the tenor of the questions generally is that most people want news that covers the whole of Britain and international news but that for all of us, including those in England, there will have to be better coverage of what is happening in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not the case that the political pressure on the BBC—if there has been political pressure—to have a Scottish six o'clock news programme comes from the nationalist wing of politics in Scotland and that the view that people in Scotland are not interested in what happens in England, or indeed in the rest of the world, is an insidious slur on the Scottish people and that we want none of it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the origin of the campaign which has been carried on. I have to recognise that the Broadcasting Council for Scotland, which is chaired by a governor of the BBC, Norman Drummond, recommended a rather different format from that which the BBC governors finally adopted. I do not think that that has anything to do with a campaign of political origin.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the rather different format he mentioned meant that the Broadcasting Councils for Scotland and Wales argued strongly for a Scottish six o'clock news programme? Is it not amazing that BBC Radio in Scotland is perfectly capable of producing a UK national and Scottish radio programme in the morning to replace the "Today" programme and carrying out a similar operation in the late afternoon to replace the "PM" programme, yet BBC Television cannot do it? Is it not odd that the Broadcasting Councils for Scotland and Wales favoured a Scottish six o'clock news programme, as did the staff of the BBC in Scotland, and only the Government and the London-based governors of the BBC—and clearly a few Members of your Lordships' House—appear to think to
474
the contrary? Is it not time that the Government and the BBC understood the consequences of their policy of devolution?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I begin slightly to regret my unwillingness to attribute political origins to the campaign for a particular form of broadcast coverage of news. Clearly, the Conservative Party is setting out its programme for the Scottish elections on the basis of what I believe some of us would agree to be poorer coverage of national and international news for the benefit of the Scots. I think that that would be a mistake, wherever it comes from.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on the Welsh language news programmes broadcast on S4C, including the news at six o'clock in the evening, the share between international, national and Welsh news seems to be very much the same as in the English programmes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not aware of that. I am interested to hear what the noble Lord says. I should say that my response to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was a personal response. The Government do not take a view about these matters.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord say where the extra £10 million for the Scottish BBC programmes will come from? Will it come from the money that was previously available to England?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it comes from the licence fee, which is paid by people in Scotland as well as by people in England.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us would be very interested to know whether the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, represent the new policy of the Conservative Party and how that is consistent with the views we read in the press today of the present leader of the Conservative Party about the British identity?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to intrude on private grief!
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is the case that the Government's wishes were interpreted to the BBC governors? Can he accept the principle that in future the BBC should not be pressurised on such matters?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, the Government's views were not interpreted to the governors of the BBC. The only comment made by government—it was made by Mr. Donald Dewar—came after the decision was taken. He recognised that many people would be disappointed by the decision but he took the view—a very measured view, I believe—that it is vital that BBC Scotland raises its standards and offers

475
proper in-depth coverage of the Scottish Parliament. It is important that we break away from the narrow concept of local news. That comment was not part of pressure on the BBC governors; it was made only after the governors had made their decision.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the BBC should internationalise the six o'clock news programme so that the people of Scotland get a wider view and are not subjected to moans about the disasters overtaking English cricket?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is where I retreat behind the wall of government non-intervention in the internal affairs of the BBC, particularly when the question relates to a sport about which I know nothing.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Lloyd of Berwick moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("Principles to be applied
PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO PART I
.—(1) Every person exercising functions in connection with this Part must act, so far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the objectives set out in subsection (2).
(2) The objectives are—

(a) that persons have access to legal services and the machinery of justice which they would otherwise be unable to obtain on account of their means;

(b) that such access be enjoyed without discrimination on any ground;

(c) that legal services and facilities be available such that disputes may be resolved, and proceedings determined, expeditiously, fairly and with the parties placed on an equal footing;

(d) that a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession be preserved.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I hope that the amendment standing in my name will prove uncontroversial. I should declare an interest, in the rather remote sense that since retiring as a Law Lord I have become Treasurer of the Inner Temple, of which I am proud to say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is also a member. I mention it only because the Inner Temple is home to some 3,000 or 4,000 barristers in this country and overseas.
The object of the amendment is to make clear the underlying purposes of Part I of the Bill. It is concerned only with Part I of the Bill; we shall come to Part III later. Not every Bill needs a clause such as this proposed new clause. Members may remember that the proper function of a purpose clause in Bills was discussed at some length when the Human Rights Bill was before the House, notably by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We need not go into any of that today. This Bill is one that cries out for a purpose clause. The Bill confers a large number of powers on various bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, at Second Reading counted as many as 17 separate new powers in the Bill, many of which are in Part I. For example, powers are conferred on the Lord Chancellor to give directions under Clause 4. Equally important, powers are conferred on the legal services commission under Clause 7 and/or Clause 9.
The main point of purpose clauses in general is to help with the construction of the particular statute if a question should come before the courts as to the meaning of the legislation. Equally important, and more important in the present case, is that a purpose clause also serves as a guide to those who must exercise the important new powers conferred upon them by the Bill and gives the courts something to go on in case any dispute as to the exercise of those powers comes before them. That was what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice had in mind at Second Reading when he drew attention to the need for a clear statement of certain fundamental principles on the face of the Bill. He gave the good example of Section 17 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. On 14th December 1998 at col. 1126 of the Official Report the noble and learned Lord listed a number of the fundamental principles that he had in mind. He clearly regarded this as a point of considerable importance. That was echoed by a number of other noble Lords in the course of Second Reading. It is very difficult to disagree with the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on that occasion.
Since then there has been a further development in the form of the publication of the fifth report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. I should like to quote one or two short passages that have direct relevance to this amendment. On page 2, having referred to the powers conferred on the legal services commission, the report goes on to state:
"In turn, the nature and scope of directions [under Clause 4] given by the Lord Chancellor will be crucial to the operation of the Commission and the way in which it provides access to justice. Yet the power of the Lord Chancellor to give directions is almost untrammelled. We view this with considerable concern".
At the top of page 2 the Select Committee reports:
"The policy objectives and national principles are not set out in the Bill, which contains no parameters or criteria for the exercise of his powers by the Lord Chancellor, but are simply left to be supplied by direction. We see the setting of objectives and priorities which will have such important consequences for citizens as a legislative act"
The committee goes on to refer to the Second Reading speech of the Lord Chief Justice.
Finally, in heavy print the committee states in paragraph 5:
"In regard to the Community Legal Service, we consider that, if significant delegated powers are to be granted under Clause 4, the Bill should be amended so as to contain (a) a clear statement of principle that the objective of the Community Legal Service is to promote and enhance the opportunities for citizens to have access to legal advice and the opportunity to resolve disputes, and (b) the criteria which the Lord Chancellor is entitled to take into account in giving directions. We believe that it is the more important to circumscribe the Lord Chancellor's powers in this way since, as the Explanatory Notes explain, the Community Legal Service Fund will 'not be an open-ended fund, as the legal aid fund is now"'.
Those views are expressed in forthright language. It is difficult to disagree with the conclusions of the Select Committee. I hope that by accepting this amendment the Committee will endorse those views.
I turn briefly to the language of the proposed amendment, which I am sure can be improved. Perhaps I may explain from where the language comes. Subsection (1) is familiar language. The expression "compatible with the objectives" is the language used in the Human Rights Act, as can be seen from page 1 of the Bill. Subsection (2)(a) reflects Section 1 of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Subsection (2)(b) requires no justification. Subsection (2)(c) reflects Rule 1(1) of the new Civil Procedure Rules which will come into force in April following the Woolf reforms. Subsection (2)(d) is a direct quotation from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, at Second Reading. The Committee will note that it does not refer to the independence of the Bar but to the independence of the legal profession as a whole.
Perhaps more important than anything else that I have said in moving the amendment is that I have had the opportunity to speak to the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Woolf, who unfortunately cannot be here today. I hope that the Committee will permit me to say that, having spoken to them, they both fully support this amendment which I hope will prove uncontroversial. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I welcome the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. In particular I welcome the fact that his amendment includes in subsection (2)(d) reference to the preservation of,
"a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession".
I especially welcome the fact that this Bill pays regard to the powers to be taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Nine years ago when the House debated the Courts and Legal Services Bill, which was introduced by the then Conservative government under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, I said that nowhere except in a Marxist state could a political Minister appoint the judges and also regulate who appeared before them. This Bill is in some ways a stride along the road to giving a political Minister increased powers over the regulation of who should and should not appear before Her Majesty's judges. It also takes us further down the road towards the United States system of the
478
administration of justice, with conditional fees and rights of audience. On a former occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke about fat cats. He should wait to measure the circumference of these cats when all of this is accomplished. It will lead to the fattest legal cats ever seen in the United Kingdom as well as an explosion of litigation once these powers are extended.
On a more general point, I believe that the Bill places too great powers in the hands of political Ministers. Hitherto, no party political politician—that is, no member of the Cabinet, of the party political administration—has had a say in regulating who represents a subject in Her Majesty's courts. It has been left to the independent judiciary to do that. The 1990 Acts brought in by the Conservative Administration went down that road. The Bill is a giant stride further.
I believe, and have always believed, in an independent Bar, with the rights of audience of the Bar. That is what I believe in; and that is what I practised in for my 40 years in law. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that he has only a fall-back power in making the regulation. With respect, it is a power that I do not believe the Lord Chancellor should have. It is all the more reason that the fundamental principles should be resoundingly set out at the beginning of the Bill. The fundamental principle dearest to my heart is that of a self-regulating profession.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, will forgive me if I defer comment on some of the issues he raised to a later stage of our deliberations.
I was unable to be present for Second Reading. Had I been present I would have congratulated my noble and learned friend on seeking to implement some of the many changes which, over a long period of years, have been discussed in the Society of Labour Lawyers of which he and I are privileged to be presidents jointly with my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis—some of them date back to the famous pamphlet Justice for all which we produced in his youth and mine. They have been argued for, too, by the legal action group. I should like to record a debt to it for mitigating some of my ignorance on the matters which we shall be discussing.
It is no part of my intention to impede the passage of the Bill. I seek to intervene for three reasons: first, to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for the reasons which he so cogently gave and which would not benefit from any repetition by me; secondly, to elaborate a little on one of the matters which he raised; and, thirdly, to refer to my Amendment No. 41 which is grouped with the noble and learned Lord's amendment. It may be possible to spare the Committee a certain amount of time at a later stage in our debate.
Perhaps I may say a word about the legal services aspect of the Bill although I appreciate that we shall debate it in greater detail later. I accept the necessity for a system of funding which is no longer open ended, as I think probably most of us do. But all that will entail

479
some hard decisions. As the Bill recognises, it will mean deciding on priorities, and that entails according a priority to one purpose by relegating another possibly very worthy purpose further down the list. Those are matters which we shall discuss later.
What we are now discussing is how those difficult decisions—and they are difficult—will be taken. Clearly my noble and learned friend must have an important role in that process on behalf of the Government. It is they who have the responsibility for funding the services of which we are talking, not from their own pockets but from the resources for which they must ask the public. There will be voices enough asking for extra expenditure on particular objects. I have little doubt that mine will be among them. No one would deny, too, my noble and learned friend the right to require that the equations should balance. But for that very reason it is important to ensure that the directions which my noble and learned friend is empowered to give shall not accord undue weight to the need for economy. That was another matter pointed out by the committee on delegated legislation on which I am privileged to serve.
Something may turn on the nature of the directions which my noble and learned friend is proposing to give. If they are purely of an administrative nature, some of the anxiety disappears. But the powers which the Bill confers are in terms much wider than that. Some future Lord Chancellor may have a different intention. I do not suggest that any future Lord Chancellor will be malicious. But if we could be certain that every future Lord Chancellor will be as fair, well intentioned and open to argument as my noble and learned friend, we would still be granting a very wide power on the face of the Bill.
What we are balancing against the necessity for economy is the requirement of justice; the right of the citizen to the redress of grievances—sometimes redress of grievances against the Government themselves—and that cannot be a matter within the unfettered discretion of the Executive if only because, among other things, it relates to the right of the citizen to challenge the Executive.
What the Bill now proposes is that my noble and learned friend shall direct the commission unconditionally on how to discharge its functions; to require it to do so in one way rather than another; and to do so without reference to Parliament. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—and I should like to echo the tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander—discussed this matter and described the powers as almost untrammelled. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to it.
It is not an issue about how best to provide legal services but a constitutional issue. On Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, spoke of the need to set out the criteria on the face of the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, pointed out, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice also echoed the need for that statement.
There was indeed a time when we were all reluctant to see general statements in primary legislation because we thought that they were not part of the enacting
480
words. Since then, I believe that two factors have changed. First, governments of all political complexions are proposing Bills which make much greater use of delegated powers, and we need some indication of what Parliament intended to be the purpose of delegating the power. Secondly, the courts are more robust in the use of judicial review to ensure that the powers are used for the purposes for which they are granted. It is not an issue about how best to make provision in the Bill. So the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee suggested two safeguards. One relates to parliamentary control, and that will be the subject of later debate. The other safeguard was to have a statement of principle on the face of the Bill to serve as a criterion against the necessity of, or the justification for, the directions which my noble and learned friend gives. For that reason, too, I strongly support the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
I set down Amendment No. 41 to deal with the directions which, on the present face of the Bill, we are according to my noble and learned friend in relation to legal services. I do not think that we require that and the amendment which the noble and learned Lord suggested. For that reason we may be able to spare the Committee the time which would otherwise be taken in debating Amendment No. 41 and a series of consequential amendments at a later stage. But that will depend upon the fate of this debate.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to which I have put my name. It is the first of a group of amendments which are designed to introduce a purpose clause. There was a purpose clause in the Legal Aid Act 1988 which is being removed and replaced by the Bill. The 1988 Act stated:
"The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for the provision … of advice, assistance and representation which is publicly funded with a view to helping persons who might otherwise be unable to obtain advice, assistance or representation on account of their means".
That is perhaps a clumsy way of expressing the purpose, but it is clear, and I believe that it was right to do so. I very much regret that we do not have an equivalent clause in the present Bill. It does not mean that there has to be such a clause in the Bill, but I strongly believe that there should be.
Part 1, to which the new clause refers, relates to access to justice through public funding. Where the issues are important to people, where they concern their right to housing, a livelihood and the welfare of their children they should not be excluded from access to justice by their poverty.
We accept that there must be priorities. There will never be enough money to provide everyone with access to justice for all the proceedings which they might reasonably wish to take. Therefore, there must be priority as to the types of cases which will receive public funding and there must be a merits test for the applicants for funding. But the new clause creates objectives, not obligations. What needs to be stated at the outset is the reason for providing the funding. It is inevitable that

481
there will be limits on funding. Those limits and the consequences of them are stated elsewhere in the Bill, but where in the Bill do the objectives appear? As regards the community legal service, they appear, if anywhere, in Clause 5(1), but as a statement of objectives it is plainly inadequate. It states that:
"The Commission shall establish, maintain and develop a service known as the Community Legal Service with a view to there being available to members of the public consisting of",
and then there is a summary which consists of information, advice, help in the resolution of disputes and help in enforcing decisions. There is no reference to the purpose for which services are to be provided. There is no reference to the fundamental principle of equality of arms which lies at the back of the whole concept of legal aid.
Criminal defence service provisions contain a purpose clause in Clause 12(1), which is a good deal more satisfactory. However, we believe that there should be an overarching purpose clause at the beginning of this part of the Bill. The proposed new clause in the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is a good one. To what can one object in the amendment? Does one object to the fact that persons are to have access to legal services and the machinery of justice which they would otherwise be unable to obtain on account of their means? No, of course not. Can one contest that such access should be enjoyed without discrimination on any ground? No, of course not. Can one object to the proposal that legal services and facilities be available such that disputes may be resolved and proceedings determined expeditiously, fairly and with the parties placed on an equal footing? No, of course not. Finally, can one object to the proposal that a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession should be preserved? Anyone concerned with the constitutional future of this country would surely say, "No, of course not".
I do not suggest that the wording of the new clause is sacrosanct, but Part I of the Bill should begin by explaining the purpose of that part. That was the view of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, of which I have the fortune to be a member and whose membership includes three distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who takes the Labour Whip. I believe that on this issue the Select Committee is right and I therefore warmly support the amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord and invite the Committee to support it, too.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support the amendment. In so doing, I recognise the need for flexibility which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out on Second Reading. Of course, that is essential. I support the overall purposes of the Bill and I agree with the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. However, I believe that the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee are very important indeed. Moreover, I cannot see how they are inconsistent or incompatible with the principles outlined by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his Second
482
Reading speech. I believe that they reinforce those principles, but they need to be set out on the face of the Bill.
It is worth noting that, naturally enough, in the White Paper my noble and learned friend sought to outline the objectives underlying the Bill. Why, then, should they not be set out in brief form on the face of the Bill, as the amendment seeks? I hope that my noble and learned friend does not have on his brief the word "Resist", or that if he does it is not too heavily underlined. If it does exist, I hope that he will exercise the discretion, which is so characteristic in him, of ignoring it.
It is extremely important that notable people such as the Lord Chief Justice and others to whom reference has been made are seriously concerned that the objectives should be stated. I believe that, too. Such a measure will be of benefit to the Government because it will help to maximise as much as possible support for the underlying purposes of the Bill among consumers and those in the legal profession who are to some degree exercised about it. It will help to demonstrate the Government's bona fides in this respect and therefore it is to be welcomed.
I am sure that my noble and learned friend will seek to answer the points which were made by the Select Committee. They are important and those arguments have to be fully respected. I hope that he will be flexible in considering the amendment, as he is in seeking the extensive powers which he believes are necessary for the good administration of the Bill when it becomes law.
Lord Ackner: I support the amendment, particularly as it reflects what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice described as fundamental principles which should be on the face of the Bill. However, there is one fundamental principle to which he referred on Second Reading which is not to be found in the new clause and I respectfully asked that it should be considered for inclusion. The fundamental principle reads:
"that rights of audience should be exercised only by those who possess the required knowledge, skill and integrity, and who are subject to a common code of conduct and discipline".—[Official Report, 14/12/98; col. 1126.]
It is most important that the quality of advocacy upon which judges rely to such a high degree does not run the risk of being significantly devalued by the root and branch proposals found in the Bill.
Lord Kingsland: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have recognised that support for this amendment has come from all parts of your Lordships' House. The arguments from both noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have been cogently expressed and, I think now, well rehearsed.
The crucial change which this Bill makes is that individuals who hitherto were entitled to legal aid, if they fulfilled certain requirements, will now obtain it only according to a discretion exercised by the legal services commission. The terms upon which that discretion will be exercised will be established by directions from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

483
At the moment there is in this Bill nothing to constrain those directions. A purpose clause along the lines suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, would change that. In my submission, it is therefore crucial that this Committee should support the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I rise to join the many voices in this Committee which have welcomed the amendment. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has a long and well established reputation for giving just and proper consideration to informed debate. We have certainly had a taste of that today.
I am confident that the Government will reflect upon what has been said in that regard by a number of Members of the Committee. Change always generates anxieties, and clarity of understanding of the basis for such change is of considerable importance. The issues raised in the amendment are at one with the ethos of this Bill, based as it is upon the need for fairness and just and equal access to justice. The preservation of a strong and independent legal profession is an essential part of the means by which such a fair system of justice can be preserved.
I hope that the Government will give good and due consideration to this amendment, which has received such wholehearted support from so many who are totally committed to the Bill and to the purpose which it is trying to achieve.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: With Amendment No.1 are grouped Amendments Nos. 2, 41, 197 and 203. If it is for the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak to all those amendments and to the general issues to which they give rise.
The amendments all aim to establish principles which would apply to Part I and so set down in statute the objectives for the community legal service and the criminal defence service, or for the community legal service alone in the case of the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell.
The establishment of principles was one of the main recommendations of the fifth report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I shall say a few words about that committee's report as well as addressing the amendments which this Committee is now considering.
At the outset of our detailed discussions on the Bill, it is important for me to inform the Committee of the position of principle which the Government intend to adopt. I welcome the Select Committee's report. I support the values which it reflects. In particular, I support the principle underlying the committee's recommendations that powers, if I may express myself generally, of an administrative character do not require parliamentary scrutiny. But those which deal with matters of principle and substance and which are of a major
484
legislative character should be subject to parliamentary procedures appropriate to their importance. Therefore, I have examined carefully the report's recommendations.
The first recommendation of the Select Committee concerns Clause 4. The recommendation is that,
"the Bill should be amended so as to contain (a) a clear statement of principle that the objective of the Community Legal Service is to promote and enhance the opportunities for citizens to have access to legal advice and the opportunity to resolve disputes, and (b) the criteria which the Lord Chancellor is entitled to take into account in giving directions".
I welcome that proposal and have decided that it would be appropriate to include a statement of the purpose of the community legal service on the face of the Bill.
We are also considering whether more should be added to the purpose of the criminal defence service, set out in Clause 12(1), and whether it would also be helpful to adopt a similar approach by setting out the purpose of the clauses covering rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. It follows that I am sympathetic to the broad purpose of the amendments now before us.
Perhaps I may chide gently by saying that these amendments were tabled extremely recently. I need time to consider how those ideas may be best expressed and fitted into the structure of the Bill and what other criteria relevant to the operation of the two schemes in Part I should be reflected in that context. Unsurprisingly, I do not accept the precise formulations which are now before the Committee.
I give some illustrations. I cannot accept that access to legal services should be enjoyed without any discrimination if that were to preclude, for example, distinctions based on the comparative strengths of cases. But of course I can readily accept the principle that access should be enjoyed without discrimination on, for example, grounds of race, gender or disability.
Similarly, it may be that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell did not intend his amendment to bear this meaning. However, the amendment is not acceptable as it stands because subsection (1)(b), to my mind, has a tendency to imply that the community legal service should in every case compel the individual concerned to attempt alternative dispute resolution prior to court or tribunal proceedings; only if that fails could he take his dispute to a court or tribunal. That would not be a step which we should wish to take. The Government are seeking to improve the options available to people for resolving disputes without having to take them to court.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will give way. I am grateful to him. That subsection was taken from a suggestion by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, but I accept that my paraphrasing of it leaves something to be desired. I certainly should not wish to press it at this stage.
The Lord Chancellor: I am very grateful. In the form in which it appears in the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend, it has a tendency to bear that meaning.
Also, I must be frank with the Committee. I doubt whether the proposed subsection (2)(d) of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which would make one of the principles governing the community legal service and the criminal defence service the preservation of a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession, would find favour as an objective of this Bill, however worthy those ambitions are. I certainly strongly support an independent legal profession.
Resources for the community legal service will always be limited and it is my ambition that they should be used to maximise access to justice. If the legal services commission and the Lord Chancellor were constrained to consider whether any proposals will maintain the current strength of the legal profession, which I take to mean its size and income, we should not be able to develop new services which do not depend on the existing profession. I must say on the Government's behalf that it is not their purpose to guarantee or promote any particular size or economic structures for the legal profession.
That said, however, I intend to bring forward further amendments on Report to define statements of purpose for the CLS and the CDS for your Lordships' consideration. On that basis, I ask the noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord in whose name the amendment stands to withdraw it.
However, it may be for the assistance of the Committee if I do riot stop there but go further to make clear the Government's principled position on those central issues so that that can inform the rest of our discussions in Committee.
The Select Committee made other recommendations about Clause 4 directions and Clause 9, which covers the funding code for the community legal service. Clause 4 gives me the power to give directions to the legal services commission about the exercise of its functions. That power could be used in a number of ways, some of which are elaborated in other clauses. I believe on reflection that it would be helpful to set out on the face of the Bill the kinds of direction that we have in mind and that, where appropriate, they should be made by order, subject to parliamentary approval.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Lord Chancellor: I accept that some intended uses of the power to make directions are sufficiently important to be subject to a requirement for affirmative resolution—for example, directions under Clause 9(2)(h). Those enable me to establish new factors to which the legal services commission must have regard in setting the criteria in the funding code. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell recognised that I would also use that direction-making power for administrative or operational matters such as the form of accounts. As the delegated powers committee itself recognised, that type of direction does not require any form of parliamentary procedure. I intend on Report to bring forward detailed proposals clearly distinguishing the future uses of that power and providing for approval procedures with which I hope your Lordships can agree.
As to the funding code, the Select Committee recommends that it be laid before Parliament in draft and brought into force by an order subject to affirmative procedure. The Bill already provides that the code should be laid before the House but I am sympathetic to the Committee's view that the code is sufficiently significant to be subject to affirmative procedure. The Legal Aid Board has brought out a consultation document on the content of the code, which will provide ample opportunities for your Lordships and those outside to consider its substance. Noble Lords who have studied the code will have observed that it will be a complex and lengthy document and one that will, I am sure, have to be amended—perhaps quite often, in its early days. While I accept that certainly the first draft should be affirmed by affirmative procedure, I wish to consider carefully how we can achieve proper scrutiny of those parts of the code that are significant without wasting the time of the House on those parts that are not significant. Again, I shall bring forward proposals on Report.
The Select Committee said that Parliament would wish to be confident that the Bill will ensure that the right under Article 6(3)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights will be guaranteed. That is the right of a person charged with a criminal offence who does not have sufficient means to pay for legal assistance to be given it free in the interests of justice, where so required. That right is already guaranteed by the Legal Aid Act 1988. All the powers governing the criminal defence service will be constrained by that article. I do not believe that a specific criterion to guarantee the convention rights is necessary or appropriate but I will seek to ensure that the substance of those convention rights is reflected in the statutory statement of purpose for the criminal defence service that I will bring forward.
The Select Committee recommends also that the powers under Schedule 5(17) and (24), which are concerned with the alteration of regulations and rules by order, should be circumscribed—allowing minor intervention if and only if I am of the opinion that the regulations of the profession unreasonably restrict rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation. I am content to accept that recommendation in principle and note that my noble and learned friend, Lord Archer of Sandwell, already has an amendment down on those lines. When we consider Schedule 5, I intend to indicate the Government's view on the precise form of words.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, drew attention to the Select Committee's recommendation that the legislation should specifically include the principle enunciated by the Lord Chief Justice that a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession should be preserved. I believe profoundly in the necessity to maintain a strong and independent legal profession that is self-regulating, which is precisely why the Government have included Clause 36—to establish the principle that all advocates and litigators should be independent in the exercise of their professional duties. The spirit of that principle is therefore already met. Nonetheless, I am looking again at Clause 36 to see whether it could

487
be strengthened to emphasise the principle of independence. I am also considering the constructive proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on lawyers in the criminal defence service.
On a point of detail, the Select Committee suggested that the powers in Schedule 5(17) should be amended, so that directions will be subject to affirmative procedure. Directions under Schedule 5(24), which is the important provision in Part III, are in fact subject to affirmative procedure. Schedule 6(11)(2) makes that clear.
I accept also the Select Committee's recommendation that Schedule 3(6)(3), under which I may add to or vary any of the factors relevant to the interests of justice test in the context of criminal legal aid, and the powers in Clauses 68 and 72 concerning immunity from costs for certain officers should be subject to affirmative resolution.
I hope that your Lordships forgive me for speaking to the first group of amendments at such length at the outset of our deliberations in Committee, but I do so to demonstrate the spirit in which the Government approach and will continue to approach the issues in the Bill. In almost 12 years in the House, I have spent too long—from one point of view, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kingsland, may not agree—listening from the Benches opposite to government spokesmen who were obdurately insistent on adhering to their briefs and were unwilling to accept manifest improvements to Bills under consideration. That approach is destructive of the raison d'être of a revising Chamber. I hope that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that that is and will be the opposite of my approach, as I intend to demonstrate to your Lordships as we proceed through the Committee stage. On that basis, I invite the noble Lords in whose names the first group of amendments stand to withdraw them.
Lord Renton: The Lord Chancellor did not have to apologise for the length of his speech, but I much regret, as I am sure do other noble and learned Lords, that the fundamental amendments that the Lord Chancellor has indicated he proposes will not be tabled until Report stage. We are here dealing with the essential principles on which the Bill is based—and to reach conclusions in Committee without knowing clearly and in considerable detail what those amendments will be is a great handicap. It may well be that the amendments that the noble and learned Lord would have tabled for Committee stage would have been dealt with today, but there are many which would be tabled on a later occasion. Will he therefore consider tabling as many as possible of the amendments he proposes to table at Report stage in time to bring them into Committee stage?
4 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: While listening to the noble and learned Lord I was moved in exactly the same direction as the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am sure the Committee welcomes the almost "Pauline" conversion of the noble and learned Lord both to the principle that
488
the Bill should express its purpose and to the need for affirmative resolutions. However, it will be extremely difficult for the Committee to proceed to consider detailed amendments until we know what form they will take.
I am sure that in the days when the noble and learned Lord was at the Bar conducting litigation, if counsel on the other side had stood up at an early stage of the proceedings and announced an intention to make at some later stage amendments of such a radical nature as he outlined to us, he would immediately have been up on his feet saying that in that case the entire matter had to be adjourned until those amendments had been formulated. It is virtually impossible to consider detailed amendments until we see them. Therefore should not the noble and learned Lord postpone the remainder of the Committee stage until they have been formulated?
Lord Goodhart: I warmly welcome the concessions made by the Lord Chancellor which do a great deal to remove the objectionable parts of the Bill. But timing is important. I certainly would not support a proposal that the Committee stage be adjourned or delayed for that purpose. It would be immensely helpful if the amendments could be circulated and made available well before Report stage, first, so that we have a proper opportunity to consider them and, secondly, if any noble Lord wishes to table amendments to the proposed new amendments, those can be dealt with at Report stage and will not need to be held over to Third Reading, which would be extremely inconvenient.
The Lord Chancellor: I cannot win! The Committee must bear in mind that we are discussing purpose or scrutiny clauses. While I indicated that I was not minded to chide too strongly, perhaps I may say that of the large number of amendments of substance with which we will be dealing in this Committee stage, a large number were tabled for the first time on Wednesday and Thursday and printed on Thursday and Friday. They had to be dealt with therefore over the weekend. A whole raft of amendments—around 150—were tabled on Friday. They were not printed until Monday and we are dealing with them today. Furthermore, 50 were tabled yesterday, were only printed today and we are dealing with them now. That is no way for a revising Chamber to be treated by those who table amendments.
In relation to these purpose and scrutiny clauses, I shall certainly publish them as soon as I possibly can—I hope before Report stage. But I would be surprised if I were unable to give more notice of them than we were given of any of the amendments that we will be considering today.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble friend has been extremely generous in his response to this debate. I do not for one moment imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, intended to be churlish about it, but that is how it appeared. I welcome the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I am sure that my noble and learned friend will do his best to accommodate it. However, the important thing is to get it right.
There are subsequent stages at which we can consider the amendments my noble and learned friend proposes to table. If he is in a position at some time before Report

489
stage to indicate what are his intentions, I am sure that he will do that. My overriding point is that it is extremely important to get the wording right. As has been recognised by the delegated powers legislation committee, if we were to make a mess of it, that would be the worst of all worlds.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As the noble and learned Lord said, if these amendments are tabled substantially before Report stage, then assuredly justice can be done.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I feel slightly puzzled. I would be the last to say to the noble and learned Lord that I did not appreciate his effort to reach some measure of agreement and acceptability throughout the Chamber. However, I can recall on a number of occasions the volume of indignation which came from this side of the Chamber when government Bills had hardly been launched into Second Reading and were immediately deluged with government amendments. When noble Lords opposite were in opposition they were extremely cross about that, with some reason.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive my intervention. We all listen with great respect to the noble Lord because he has had long experience here. However, is not there a distinction between amendments tabled by the Government in response to amendments tabled by other Members and amendments tabled by the Government because they had not thought the matter through and had had second thoughts? That is what was happening in the last Parliament.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble and learned Lord has great experience in these matters. He says that the Government had not thought it through. Perhaps one could say, "You too have not thought it through".
Here we have an important constitutional Bill which makes a great many far reaching changes. I must say that I was surprised by the immediate and generous response of the noble and learned Lord, but I wonder rather modestly why those responses to proposals which caused enormous unrest were not thought of before. We may say they are new, but judges delivered their opinions, the Bar Council delivered its opinions and still the Bill came.
In the Bill the noble and learned Lord is demanding a large number of powers. He cannot have thought that they would not be subject to objection. That is why I am on my feet—to say that I am genuinely surprised at the speed at which the noble and learned Lord met the objections launched to the Bill. It has not so far been the habit of this Administration to listen to their critics or their Cabinet.
Lord Ampthill: Should not therefore we be extremely grateful that the Lord Chancellor—I speak as a member of the Select Committee to whom he has been extremely kind and taken due note of virtually everything we said—proposes to do something about the objections? How he can do that before Report stage
490
I fail to see. If we want a new purpose clause, as the noble Lord proposes in Amendment No. 1, we cannot go backwards at Committee stage. Therefore the whole Committee should be extremely grateful for the marvellous reception which the noble and learned Lord gave to the recommendations of the Select Committee and be thankful that note has been taken thereof.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I can offer a suggestion following upon my noble friend Lord Renton's remarks. Notwithstanding the generosity of the noble and learned Lord, if Members of the Committee are concerned that they will not have an opportunity to discuss in full any amendments that he may put to your Lordships' House on Report because of the procedures that we adopt, would there not be an opportunity to have the clauses which may be affected re-committed to a Committee of the whole House?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very full reply to the amendment standing in my name, especially the observations he made on the wider aspects of the Bill which will prove to be the great issues at later stages of the Bill. He has gone a long way towards meeting the points that were in the minds of those proposing the amendment. We look forward to his fresh proposals as soon as they are available. I hope that that is a neutral way of expressing our view. Obviously, the sooner we have the proposals the better.
The amendment has served the purpose for which it was tabled. It has had support from all sides of the Committee. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 3.
Page 1, leave out lines 18 to 20.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the first of a series of amendments, I apologise to your Lordships and particularly to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the amendments are starred. However, I do not believe that that will cause difficulty because they are almost entirely probing amendments.
The amendments fall into two classes. The first explores the legislative powers that the executive is claiming and arrogating. The amendment goes beyond the matters referred to by the Select Committee. The fact that it has taken the report of the Select Committee to make the Government face what one would think are elementary constitutional principles is a little alarming. In that regard, I echo what has been said by other noble Lords.
The other amendments check the necessity for a number of provisions in the Bill. Even by present standards this is a very prolix Bill. It must not be thought that I blame the parliamentary draftsmen who are generally fine lawyers and people of great skill. They are working under very great pressure. Members of the Committee will remember that Bernard Shaw

491
once apologised for writing a long letter because he did not have time to write a short one. Any draftsman in your Lordships' House-I see a number of eminent draftsmen-will know that it is much easier to draft loosely and discursively rather than economically. So your Lordships are fully entitled to satisfy yourselves that the provisions in the Bill are really necessary. I hope that I shall cover ground that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will undoubtedly have had under review generally.
Amendment No. 3 is to leave out lines 18 to 20 on page 1. The Bill states:
"The Commission shall consist of—

(a) not fewer than seven members, and

(b) not more than twelve members;"

The words I question are:
"but the Lord Chancellor may by order substitute for either or both of the numbers for the time being specified … such other number or numbers as he thinks appropriate".
In other words, he does not regard himself as being bound by the statute. That is the power that is taken.
The wording may be less innocuous than it appears to be at first sight. The Lord Chancellor has enormous patronage. I drew attention to the extent of it in the last Parliament. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern may remember. There are pages and pages of appointments which lie within the gift of the Lord Chancellor. In my respectful submission, we ought to scrutinise carefully a power to appoint more. I can guess why the Lord Chancellor would wish to have that power. At the moment I cannot even guess why he would want to adopt the minimum figure.
When the Lord Chancellor proceeds by order it is the negative procedure. As Members of the Committee know well, an order subject to the negative procedure, more often than not, is not reached in the other place and is dealt with perfunctorily in your Lordships' House. So I suggest, as this is the first of the matters on which the Government claim to legislate by statutory instrument, it should be closely scrutinised. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 4, which is in the same grouping. The amendment has the same purpose as Amendment No. 3, which is to probe.
In what circumstances does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor believe he would wish to increase the number of members of the commission from 12? I am not suggesting for a moment that the noble and learned Lord would, in any circumstances, wish to increase the number of members because the decisions they were making were unattractive to him, but I suppose it is possible to envisage an unattractive future and to imagine that some future Lord Chancellor might wish to use the power for that purpose. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the exercise of such a power should at least be subject to positive affirmation by this Chamber.
Perhaps I may make one more general point. Recent experience of the previous government has shown the relationship between government departments and
492
so-called "independent agencies" can be an unhappy one. I refer particularly to the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Service in its initial stages. The noble and learned Lord is establishing an independent agency to manage the provision of legal services. On the face of it, the agency will be independent with a mind independent of the Lord Chancellor's Department. In my submission, it is important that the basis of that relationship should be clearly set out on the face of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 1(3) provides that:
"The Commission shall consist of—

(a) not fewer than seven members, and—

(b) not more than twelve members;"

but states that I may, by order, alter those numbers. Amendment No. 3 is designed to take away altogether my power to vary the minimum or the maximum number of commission members—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: If my noble and learned friend will allow me, I should point out that that is not quite what the provision does. Indeed, my noble and learned friend would still have the opportunity to do whatever he wanted by primary legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: If my noble and learned friend had allowed me to conclude the sentence, I would have continued to say that, if the three lines 18 to 20 were taken out of the clause, my power under the Bill to vary the minimum or the maximum number of commission members would be removed. Of course, without those lines I could act under subsection (4), which provides that the members of the commission,
"shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor",
and thereby appoint just as many as I chose. The purpose of the words of limitation is to indicate that in my broad view something between seven or 12 members is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked in what circumstances I would wish to increase the number above 12. The answer is that if I, or any successor, thought that greater expertise were required than that provided by 12, the number could be increased. However, if it were thought that having 12 members was over-burdening the commission and that fewer would suffice, there would be a discretion to reduce the number.
We can all become very excited about secondary legislation, but in my respectful submission we must retain a sense of proportion. The provision gives your Lordships the best estimate of what we think the parameters of size should be. We do not want to have to come back and seek primary legislation to change what is essentially an administrative matter.
I turn now to Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. In my view the order contemplated under the amendment is of an administrative character and should only be subject to the negative resolution procedure. If I were to do something absolutely bizarre like reducing the number of members to one, the negative resolution powers

493
would be quite sufficient. There is nothing of a serious nature in these provisions to cavil at. I invite the noble and learned Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his explanation. He has taken a very wide bracket here. The reason I thought he would give is rather better than the one he did give; namely, that he might change his mind and want a different maximum or a different minimum. He did not explain at all why a different minimum might be desirable. He addressed himself purely to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, regarding why he should want more. He answer was, "I may change my mind in the light of experience." That is simply not good enough.
We are a parliamentary democracy. A few years ago we were celebrating the tricentenary of the Glorious Revolution. Our parliamentary system has been battered on several occasions. Members of the Committee will wish to stand up for it and will not want to see it gradually eroded by a power-hungry executive arrogating to itself more and more powers. This will not be the last Bill where we shall have to take notice of that matter; nor is this the last amendment.
In the meantime, as I do not press amendments to a Division in Committee hut, if necessary, table them on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment without conceding that my noble and learned friend satisfied me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Prior to making any appointment under subsection (4), the Lord Chancellor shall consult professional bodies and representatives of consumer interests.").
The noble Lord said: This is a condition precedent, so to speak, to the actual appointment of the members of the commission. The subsequent amendments in the group go into the detail of the membership. It is purely a probing amendment in order to examine the Government's thinking about the process prior to the actual appointments. The amendment calls for professional bodies and representatives of consumer interests to be consulted. I should not have thought that that would need to go on the face of the Bill. I wish simply to ascertain from my noble and learned friend what he has in mind when going about this particular job. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: I believe that we are now dealing also with Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 to which I have attached my name. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has dealt most admirably with Amendment No. 5, so perhaps I may now speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8. The intention of these amendments is to ensure that among those represented on the commission there should be included at least one practising barrister and one practising solicitor. Indeed, in Amendment No. 7 I have suggested that two practising solicitors should be included as I believe that that is what the existing law
494
requires. In circumstances where the solicitors' profession is at the forefront of dealing, at least initially, with those who are seeking legal aid, it seems to me to be strongly arguable and only right that they should be more fully represented than the Bar.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Borrie: Why is it that the mover of this amendment thinks that this provision is necessary bearing in mind that Clause 1(5) already states that persons who may be appointed to the commission will include,
"persons with experience in or knowledge of … the work of the courts"?
Surely barristers and solicitors have experience of the work of the courts? If they do not, they may be inappropriate people to be appointed to the commission. I should have thought that matter was already covered.
Lord Goodhart: I rise briefly to support the amendments in this group, to two of which I have put my name. It is perhaps difficult to imagine that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or any of his successors would appoint a legal services commission on which there was not a member of the Bar or a solicitor. However, it is clearly important that interests on all sides be represented. In a commission of seven members—it is even more important in a commission of 12—it is clearly appropriate to have at least two working representatives of the legal profession who should cover both branches of that profession. If a commission of 12 members was appointed, it may be appropriate to appoint two solicitors to it. Be that as it may, I support this amendment. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accept it or at least to indicate that it is his intention to comply with the spirit of the amendment in making those appointments.
Lord Hacking: I oppose these amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I do so on two grounds. First, I believe they are unnecessary. That point has already been made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Secondly, and more importantly, I believe them to be undesirable. The Committee will see plainly that Clause 1(5) identifies the experience and knowledge which members of the legal services commission should have. If I may say so, it is put rather more succinctly than in the Courts and Legal Services Act, although I would include—I believe that the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Linklater, will speak to an amendment on consumer affairs—in the criteria knowledge and experience of consumer affairs. Having said that, the amendment seems to me unnecessary as it is expressly stated in Clause 1(5) that in appointing members to the commission the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor,
"shall have regard to the desirability of securing that the Commission includes persons with experience in or knowledge of"
the provision of legal services, the work of the courts and so on.
As I said, my second reason for opposing these amendments is that I believe them to be undesirable. I believe it is of paramount importance that members of

495
the legal services commission should act as members of that commission and not as representatives of solicitors, barristers, the judiciary or any other body. We have experience of this matter. Like my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I participated fully in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay—if I may still call him my noble and learned friend—may correct me, but it is my recollection that when he originally put forward the proposal for the advisory committee he was looking for a rather smaller committee than one comprising 17 members, which was the number which comprised the advisory committee.
During the passage of that Bill there was much pressure for representatives—I have to put it that way—to be appointed to that advisory committee. With the exception of the Lord of Appeal or the Judge of the Supreme Court who were to chair that advisory committee, we ended up with a judge, two practising barristers, two practising solicitors, two law teachers and so forth. I have not been privy to the detailed workings of the advisory committee but certainly one has the impression from the length of its deliberations that the solicitor or barrister members of that committee felt that they represented the interests of the Bar, solicitors and so on. I believe that that devalued the efficiency of that committee. Therefore it is strongly desirable that we do not have representatives of the Bar and solicitors on this commission. Members should be appointed to serve the commission and nothing else.
On the question of numbers—
Lord Goodhart: Does the noble Lord accept that it is not proposed in these amendments that the member of the Bar or the solicitor who are appointed should be representatives or have any trade union capacity? It is simply a matter of having someone on the commission who is a practising barrister and someone who is a practising solicitor.
Lord Hacking: It is highly likely that that will happen. However, as regards the advisory committee, practising solicitors were to be appointed after consultation with the Bar Council and after consultation with the Law Society. Therefore the amendment does not go as far as the terms of the Courts and Legal Services Act. However, it is still proposed that persons will be appointed whom I must describe as representatives of members of the professions that I have mentioned.
My final point concerns the question of numbers. I am not entirely sure how many members are now on the Legal Aid Board whose membership can rise to 17. I suspect that the present constitution of the Legal Aid Board is closer to 16 or 17 than the lower number, which I believe is 11. It is important that my noble and learned friend has stipulated an upper cap at present of 12 members for the commission. In my view that will make the commission work more efficiently, more succinctly and with greater coherence. I have already mentioned the number of 17 members in connection with
496
the advisory committee. There is an upper figure of 17 members as regards the Legal Aid Board. For all those reasons I believe these amendments are misconceived. I hope that the Committee will reject them.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: I venture into deep waters. I take the example of St. Peter and hope that I can walk upon them not too badly. I support Amendment No. 5. I make a plea that the commission should contain representatives of consumer interests. One of the things I try to do in connection with prisons is occasionally to deal with individual cases not only as regards convicted inmates but also as regards their families. I have been impressed by the support which many people in these circumstances have received from law shops and law centres. Those places seem to me to give access to legal advice in an appropriate way. Access to high quality assistance is an important element of the intentions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
In my experience about a third of the clients of these law centres seek advice on housing difficulties and about the same number seek advice on social security matters. I hope it is possible to appoint someone to the commission to represent consumer interests as I am sure that would strengthen and support the intentions that the noble and learned Lord has in mind.
Lord Hacking: I rise again briefly to correct myself. I said that I thought the amendment was different from Section 19 of the Courts and Legal Services Act in the sense that the proposed barrister and solicitor members would not be appointed after consultation had taken place. I note that I was incorrect. The words that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and those others who have tabled the amendment have used are the exact words that I used in the Courts and Legal Services Act. The same applies to Amendment No. 7. That strengthens my argument that they inevitably will be there—basically through the nomination of their professional body—regardless of whether they are there as representatives in the first place.
Lord Wigoder: Whatever answer the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gives to these amendments, I hope that he will not rely on the contention of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Hacking, that the words in subsection (5)(b) concerning persons with experience of the "work of the courts", necessarily involve the services of trained or qualified lawyers. The "work of the courts" does not necessarily involve that. It might refer to prison officers, police officers, probation officers or even experienced prisoners. I hope that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intends to appoint some qualified members of the legal profession to the commission, he will not do so by relying on the words in subsection (5)(b).
The Lord Chancellor: I take note of the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln that consumer interests should be represented. It will not have escaped his attention that Amendment No. 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, addresses that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, calls attention to the fact that persons with experience in, or knowledge of, the work of the courts may include many persons other than qualified lawyers, but I should not have thought that those words excluded qualified lawyers.
The Government's intentions on the composition of he commission are set out in Clause 1(5). The categories of expertise set out in that subsection are designed to ensure that the commission is informed about the nature of the service that will be provided under the community legal service and the criminal defence service, the interplay between the provision of services and the work of the courts, the social environment in which services will be provided, and good management practice.
Certainly the Legal Aid Act 1988 expressly required the appointment of lawyers. But the role of the legal services commission will be quite different from that of the Legal Aid Board. It therefore requires a different composition. The lack of a requirement for a specified number of lawyers among the members of the commission reflects the shift in focus from the needs of providers of legal services towards the needs of users. I shall return to that point from time to time as the Committee proceeds.
I can assure your Lordships that lawyer membership of the commission is by no means precluded; it is to be expected. It is envisaged that the commission will include members who represent both providers and consumers of the services that the commission will provide. We intend that all appointments to the commission will be made in accordance with the Nolan Committee's recommendations on public appointments and the Office for the Commissioner of Public Appointments' guidance on appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies. There will therefore be an opportunity for the professional bodies to nominate candidates for appointment, and we hope that they will do so.
On that basis, I invite the noble Lord in whose name the amendment stands to withdraw it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Before that happens, I should like to say a word about the constitution of the Legal Aid Board under the 1988 Act. That is a closer analogy than the advisory committee under the Act of 1990.
It was certainly my practice when I held the office of Lord Chancellor to consult the Law Society and the Bar Council as required with regard to the lawyers who might serve on the Legal Aid Board. So far as the work of the Legal Aid Board was concerned, there was no question of those people acting as trade union representatives for the profession, which is how the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to them. I pay tribute to all of them for the way in which they served the community through their work with the Legal Aid Board. I do not believe that any of them were more concerned to protect the providers than the users of the service; they were concerned to provide good service.
There was a link between the board and the professions, but the Legal Aid Board did all that it could to make sure that the users of the service were properly
498
served. I should like to make it clear that that was my impression of their work. I was grateful to the professional bodies for the care that they took in advising the Lord Chancellor on such appointments. I can say without any equivocation that we found them all to be very helpful in the work that they were asked to do.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that it is difficult to think of any profession that is better qualified to express a view about the terms on the provision of legal advice is made to less well-off people than the solicitors' profession?
The Lord Chancellor: I yield to no one in my admiration of the solicitors' profession, but there are many people from the voluntary sector and consumer organisations who, in my judgment, are at least as well equipped to advise on that matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment concerns two very short drafting points. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 states:
"In appointing persons to be members of the Commission the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the desirability of securing that the Commission includes persons with experience in or knowledge of",
what is set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d).
My first point is one which I have raised before about whether it would not be much easier for a user of the statute book if the word "and" came at the end of both paragraph (a) and (b) without one having to wait until the end of paragraph (c) to see whether it is "and" or "or". The last time I raised that point it did not meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, or my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. That, of course, causes me to pause. Tossing the provision back in my teeth, their objection was that it would add extra words to the statute. If my noble and learned friend will accept the two extra words proposed in Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, I can guarantee to find 200 unnecessary ones which he can use to compensate for them.
My second point is whether the draftsman really does mean "and" rather than "or". Does he really require that the person to be included has to possess all those qualities? It would be even more difficult if the noble Baroness succeeds in carrying Amendment No. 11 because one would have to add to all these accomplishments a knowledge of consumer affairs.
It may be that the Lord Chancellor will find some Pooh-Bah who meets all these criteria, but I venture to think that it will be sufficient if the member in question meets one of them, and particularly perhaps that which is favoured by the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: It is always with the greatest possible reluctance that I ever hold myself out to disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, on this occasion, as on a previous occasion, I do so, although I think that he has made a good point about the desirability of using the word "or" in this subsection. But it need not be used four times. If it were to be used instead of the word "and" in line 10, the intention of the Lord Chancellor might be well fulfilled.
The Lord Chancellor: I find it difficult to muster the enthusiasm for these narrow issues that is demonstrated so often by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was given pause on a previous occasion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it was not for very long!
What I think the draftsman intended was that, collectively, the persons on the commission should bring to the commission the experience defined inclusively in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (5). However, I have listened to what the noble and learned Lord has said. It is perfectly true that a useful member of the commission could be an individual who brought experience and knowledge of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) but not experience of all of them. Therefore, I shall give pleasure to the noble and learned Lord by inviting him to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I will invite the parliamentary draftsman to consider the virtues of "or" as against "and".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am naturally discouraged when I find myself opposed both by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I will withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for offering to consider further the second point, whether the word should not be "or". It is not a question of the commission collectively, as I think he put it, having the range of qualities. What is demanded by the draftsman, as I read the subsection, is that the individual appointed should have them.
I hope I need not apologise for wishing to make the statute book more user-friendly and more accurate. However, having heard my noble and learned friend's offer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert (", and
(e) consumer affairs").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the membership of the new legal services commission. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 specifies the type of people that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will appoint. It carefully specifies people with experience of the provision of legal services, people with experience of the work of the courts, people with experience of social conditions and people with experience of management. My amendment would add to that list those with knowledge and experience of consumer affairs.
Over the past few years—indeed I realise now that it is eight years since 1991 when I became chairman of the National Consumer Council and first started to work on access to justice, a piece of work which seems to have grown and grown—I have been fortunate enough to see a number of initiatives in the civil justice system which have made it far more focused on the needs of the end user or consumer. For example, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, as set up by the Civil Procedure Act 1997, includes a representative with knowledge and experience of consumer affairs. That is the committee which makes the rules for the way in which our civil courts operate. Since consumers have been involved in devising the rules of the court, they have been transformed beyond recognition. They are much more user friendly, they are written in plain English and have a much more logical format.
The noble and learned Lord the Chancellor himself may remember that when he was in opposition he and I took part in the Committee stage of the Civil Procedure Bill on 20th November 1996. He and I tabled similar amendments to the Bill specifying consumer and advice sector memberships to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. At that time the Bill referred only to people with knowledge of the working of the courts. On that day the noble and learned Lord made a very clear case for specifying consumer and advice sectors in the wording of that legislation. Fortunately, we were successful and the Act now does make that specification with, I am sure he will agree, very favourable results.
The same principle is at stake in this Bill. It seems strange to me that in subsection (5) of Clause 1 a number of types of individual are specified but not anyone with knowledge or experience of consumer affairs. Surely a body as important as the legal services commission should include a consumer representative along with the others specified in subsection (5).
From past experience, the Lord Chancellor has clearly expressed a view that it is important that those with experience and knowledge of consumer affairs should be involved in aspects of the civil justice system. I therefore hope that he will be able to accept this amendment from me today in the same receptive spirit as his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, displayed as regards the Civil Procedure Act two years ago. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I rise to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. The

501
word "consumer" in relation to the client of legal services is not entirely a happy one. After all, one cannot consume legal services in the way in which one can consume an apple. However, over the years, in legislation of various kinds, for good or ill, the word "consumer" has come to mean the purchaser or end user—to use another phrase of the noble Baroness—of goods and services of all kinds. To have on the legal services commission someone who has experience in or knowledge of consumer affairs would be most helpful.
I disagreed with the noble Baroness only in her use of the phrase, "representatives of consumer organisations". We do not want "representatives" in this regard, any more than we do in relation to the Law Society or the Bar Council. If, however, that was a slip, and the noble Baroness meant that various consumer organisations such as the one of which she was a respected chairman, the National Consumer Council, or the Consumers Association were to be consulted that is fine. Perhaps I may mention another organisation that would be particularly appropriate to this part of the Bill. I refer to the citizens advice bureaux movement, the bodies that are so useful to people up and down the country in providing various forms of information, often of a legal nature and therefore approved and accredited by lawyers. It is informal oral advice, leading people to a lawyer to obtain further and better advice. Therefore, people who come from that field, as an alternative to the Consumers Association or the National Consumer Council, might well be appropriate, helpful members of the commission. The key experience that someone with knowledge of consumer affairs would bring to the commission would be a continuing concern for value for money and quality of service at a reasonable price. That would surely be of great benefit to the commission.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: The commission will be smaller than the Legal Aid Board. We must be careful not to enlarge the description of people who can serve on the commission, to make it so thoroughly comprehensive of society that the commission will become an enormous board.
Every living person is a consumer. If we did not consume we should not go on living. I wonder whether those who represent consumer bodies are any more worthy of representation on this body than, for example, representatives of trade unions or professional bodies. I respect my noble friend, who always puts wise opinions before your Lordships. However, I have some doubt as to whether this amendment would be genuinely helpful.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: As another non-lawyer, I wish to add my voice to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in support of this amendment addressing membership of the legal services commission. There is always a danger that those who operate the legal system and work within it, even with the best will in the world, will tend to focus on rules and procedure and lose sight of the needs of people who use the service, who may be termed purchasers or users. It is understandable that it might have undesirable and unfortunate consequences for ordinary people.
502
The reforms that the Bill seeks to introduce are partly to remedy a civil justice system that does not properly meet the needs of those consumers it exists to serve. Too often, it is painfully slow, appallingly expensive and usually incomprehensible and frightening, especially to the inexperienced. To members of the legal profession the courtroom may be the equivalent of the office, but it is a place to which most ordinary' people wish never to return.
The reforms that the Bill enables will be sweeping. For the lay person there are five main strands: reform of civil procedure; greater emphasis on alternatives to trial; reform of state funding for legal services; expansion of alternatives to state funding—the "no win, no fee" agreement; and the establishment of a community legal service. The job of weaving those strands together into a coherent and effective whole will fall partly on the legal services commission. The commission's role is therefore crucial to the success of the reforms.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who is one of my heroes, recently conducted a two-year review of civil justice. In it, he recognised the importance of placing the needs of ordinary people at the centre of legal reform by recommending that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and Civil Justice Council, the two major bodies created by his review, should have designated places for consumer members. In that, he received the support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he was in opposition.
It is equally important that the legal services commission should put the needs of ordinary people at the centre of its work. To do that it, too, needs members who will focus primarily on the needs of those using the service, particularly the inexperienced and the vulnerable.
Of course, the commission will not start with a totally clean sheet. It will inherit much received wisdom that must be challenged if the reforms are to create something new and different. It must rethink old ways of doing things. Lay members are often effective catalysts to change, because they do not bring with them the inherited baggage of the professionals. Change would be much more difficult without them.
I understand that, in government, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already recognised the valuable contribution that consumer representatives can make to many aspects of the work in his own department, where they serve productively and happily on working groups and policy committees. It therefore seems to me that there is nothing to be lost, and everything to be gained, by accepting this amendment. I urge the Government to do so.
Baroness Thornton: I support the principle behind the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and congratulate the noble Baroness on tabling it. It is correct to say that the voice of the consumer must be heard. I am aware of the noble Baroness's work on and support for consumer interests. I join her in her attempt to bring that experience to bear

503
in this instance. I wish particularly to add my congratulations on the work of the National Consumer Council.
It is significant that there is cross-party support for this proposal. I hope that the cross-party consensus on the interests of the consumer will be heard and followed throughout all the considerations on this measure. We must put the consumer first, across the political divide and the divide between lawyer and non-lawyer. On behalf of non-lawyers, I say gently and with the deepest respect to my colleagues in this Chamber from the legal profession that this debate will be heard outside this House as well as inside. The Bill is about access to the law. It must be heard to be in people's interests as well as actually being in their interests. The language of our debate must be accessible. As a non-lawyer, I put in a plea that we speak in language that is accessible to those who wish to follow this debate about access to the law for the majority.
Baroness Crawley: I wish to add my strong support to the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Baroness Linklater of Butterstone, proposing that membership of the legal services commission should include those with knowledge and experience of consumer affairs. Both noble Baronesses have a strong interest in consumer affairs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, reminded us, she is a former chair of the National Consumer Council. We are grateful for the expertise that she brings to the debate.
The amendment fully reflects the fact that the interests of the consumer go to the very heart of the Bill. It is designed to meet people's needs, create a new awareness of justice, and deliver real value for money in a modern context which sweeps away old restrictive practices.
The inclusion of provision for consumer representation on the commission will mean that it will be expertly assisted in carrying out its functions and evaluating the needs of users of the community legal service. From my constituency experience of consumer policy in the European Union, I believe that the amendment is sensible and necessary and would undoubtedly add value to the Bill. I recommend it to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Hacking: As a lawyer, I support the amendment. That much maligned profession of which I am honoured to be a member has long been concerned about consumers of the courts. It is over 20 years since the commercial court users' committee was formed, on which there is a large lay representation. About three years ago I was asked to be president of the county court users' group. It is important that, in order to have good value for money and efficiency of the system, the consumer should be represented on the commission. The only other matter about which I would seek to persuade my noble and learned friend is that he should not add any further criteria to the Bill. If the amendment is accepted, the subsection will have added to it paragraph (e). Let us not go further than that. Section 19(5) of the Courts and Legal Services Act extends to
504
paragraph (g). I fear that if we move any further we shall lose the main purport of this commission, which is to act as a cohesive body.
The Lord Chancellor: We intend the focus of the legal services commission to be on the needs of users rather than providers of the legal services to be provided by the CLS and CDS. It was, therefore, in any event likely that at least one person with experience in, or knowledge of, consumer affairs would be appointed to the commission so that it could be sufficiently informed about the interests of consumers of these services. Clause 1(5)(c) requires the Lord Chancellor to consider the desirability of appointing to the commission persons having experience in, or knowledge of, social conditions.
It always was our intention that the provision would ensure that the membership of the commission would be sufficiently informed about consumer affairs in evaluating the need for services. But concerns have been expressed by bodies who represent the interests of consumers that our intention to take account of consumer interests in the membership of the commission should appear unequivocally on the face of the Bill. I am happy to accept the principle of the amendment. It is particularly appropriate that the noble Baroness, a distinguished former chair of the National Consumer Council, should have proposed it.
I welcome the opportunity that the amendment gives me to demonstrate to the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Linklater of Butterstone, my consistency over the years. Such is my regard for the consumer interest that I am minded to re-order the paragraphs and not relegate consumer affairs to the bottom line. I undertake to show the noble Baroness a draft of what I propose for her consideration before Report. On that basis, I invite her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank the noble and learned Lord. He has pleased me very much today. We have been battling on this matter for some time and I was not sure how we would fare today. It is so easy to become hung up on the word "consumer." It is not a word that we all like particularly, but it is a kind of generic term which we have all had to come to use.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned the citizens advice bureaux. Organisations representing citizens must be represented, and I believe that that is already provided for. Consumers of goods and services—in this case consumers of services—are a specific group of people, represented originally by the National Consumer Council, set up over 26 years ago by the then Shirley Williams who was at that time a member of the Labour Party. For that I must express my thanks.
I believe that we have what we want. I look forward to reading what the noble and learned Lord said. I take this opportunity to thank all those who supported the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Legal Services Commission]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 52, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall publish the plan submitted to the Lord Chancellor.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16. These amendments concern the relationship between the legal services commission and the Lord Chancellor's Department and refer to paragraph 15 of Schedule 1, which is entitled "Annual plan".
Under paragraph 15 the commission is required, before the beginning of each financial year, to prepare a plan setting out how it will fund services from the community legal service fund and the criminal defence service and how it is to exercise its other functions. The effect of the amendments would be to change the drafting of sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) as follows. Sub-paragraph (2) would read:
"The Commission shall send a copy of each plan prepared under sub-paragraph (1) to the Lord Chancellor".
Sub-paragraph (3) would read:
"The Commission shall publish the plan submitted to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament".
In sub-paragraph (4), if the Lord Chancellor does not approve the plan, he shall make his reasons public and direct the commission to revise it.
The purpose behind these changes is to make the relationship between the legal services commission, on the one hand, and the Lord Chancellor's Department, on the other, more transparent. It will, I trust, demonstrate the principle, to which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor subscribes, that the commission not only has a personality of its own but is also capable of having, and sometimes will have, a will of its own. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I shall, if I may, speak to Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15 and 16. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, these amendments require the publication of the legal services commission's annual plan in draft form before it is approved by the Lord Chancellor or laid before each House of Parliament and requires the Lord Chancellor to publish his reasons for not approving an annual plan prepared by the commission. As the noble Lord accurately said, the effect will be to make clear the role of the Lord Chancellor in the commission's process of planning how it intends to fund services and exercise its other functions. Obviously, the Lord Chancellor will have a key role in ensuring that the commission's strategy delivers value for money and meets the need for services that has been identified in a way which accords with government policy. This role, as the noble Lord explained, will be exercised with the safeguard of the approval mechanism set out in paragraph 15 of Schedule 1.
506
Given that the commission will be working within a framework of priorities and in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chancellor, it is likely that the safeguard contained in paragraph 15 will rarely need to be used. The Bill as drafted already provides for clear public information about the development of the annual plan. The legal services commission will produce the plan following wide consultation, primarily through the regional legal services committees and community legal service partnerships. The plan will summarise the regional legal services committees' regional strategies which will themselves have been published after full and wide consultation. Further detail about the basis of the plan, for example the underlying data at local or regional level, will also be available under the open government code of practice. I find it difficult to foresee why any direction given to the commission by the Lord Chancellor to revise the plan would not also be made available under the open government code of practice. However, to make clear that that is the position the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is willing to undertake to ensure that that will happen.
Publication of the annual plan in draft form would add expense and delay to the process of agreeing the plan. It could also suggest a further consultation stage in the planning process. The necessary consultation will already have been completed by that stage through the mechanisms that I have described. A statutory duty to publish the plan in draft, which is the effect of the amendment, is therefore undesirable and unnecessary. It would result in the complexity, expense and delay of publishing and laying before Parliament two plans. However, the Lord Chancellor is willing to consider at the same time as he lays the plan before Parliament accompanying it with a statement of reasons for departing in any material respect from the commission's draft plan, and he will table government amendments to that effect. I believe that that goes some way to meeting the concerns of the noble Lord. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful for the extremely constructive observations of the noble and learned Lord in responding to this amendment. I shall read his remarks carefully. If I have correctly understood them I believe that I have good grounds for begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 52, leave out lines 28 to 33 and insert—
("( ) The Commission shall publish the plan and the Lord Chancellor shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 covers very much the same ground as the group of amendments that the Committee has just discussed but it goes rather further. The amendment requires the commission to publish the report as its own report independently of the Lord Chancellor. This raises a difficult question, which I believe will become more prominent when we come to Clause 4 of the Bill, as to the proper relationship between the legal services commission and the Lord Chancellor. On the one hand the commission is an independent body

507
with statutory duties placed upon it by the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, pointed out. Yet it is made subject in all material respects to control by directions given by the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, the question is whether it is really an independent statutory body or simply an executive agency under the control of the Lord Chancellor. At this stage I shall not go into the question of which it should be, but when the Committee comes to Clause 4 I shall put forward the arguments as to why the commission should retain a substantial degree of independence from the Lord Chancellor. It is in that context that this amendment is moved.
If the Committee looks at paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1 the commission must prepare a plan at the beginning of each financial year. It then sends a copy of that plan to the Lord Chancellor. Under sub-paragraph (3) if the Lord Chancellor approves it well and good, and he tells the commission to publish it. However, if he does not approve it not only can he direct the commission to revise it but he can direct as to how it is to be revised. Therefore, for all practical purposes it becomes a plan not of the commission but of the Lord Chancellor. The only action that the commission can take if it does not like what the Lord Chancellor tells it to do is to resign. This appears to be a very peculiar situation.
It is not my intention to press this amendment on this particular occasion because I wish to consider the matter in the context of the amendments that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intends to table in relation not only to the specific paragraph just mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, but also in the context of the wider amendments that the Lord Chancellor is to table in the light of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. However, this matter causes me some concern and when the Committee comes to Clause 4 I shall take the matter a little further.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 13 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 under the pre-emption rule.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has clearly explained, this amendment goes further than the previous group of amendments just debated. It would remove the mechanism by which the Lord Chancellor is able to approve the commission's annual plan before it is published and laid before each House of Parliament. The commission's annual plan will set out how it intends to fund services and exercise its other functions. The plan will summarise the original findings and advice of the regional legal services committees which will have been published in full as regional strategies following wide consultation. Further detail about the basis of the plan will be available under the open government code of practice.
In drawing up the plan, the commission will work within the parameters of priorities set by the Lord Chancellor through directions made in accordance with Clauses 4(1) and 7(1) of the Bill. Unless the commission fails in any important respect to address those
508
priorities it is highly unlikely that the approval mechanism set out in the Bill will result in the Lord Chancellor wishing to impose any significant or controversial changes.
However, because the commission will have very wide discretion in determining detailed priorities and in the way that it procures legal services within a broad framework of national priorities set by the Lord Chancellor, I believe that it is essential that the Lord Chancellor is able to satisfy himself that the commission's strategy delivers value for money and meets the need for services that has been identified in a way that accords with government policy. The approval mechanism contained in the Bill, which means that the Lord Chancellor is involved before publication, is designed to deliver the appropriate level of assurance. We believe that it represents the right relationship between the legal services commission and the Lord Chancellor. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: As I indicated in moving the amendment, it is not my intention to press the matter if only because I wish to see the further amendments that the Government intend to table. This is a matter that I shall consider carefully and may bring back again. On this occasion I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 2 [Power to replace Commission with two bodies]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar): I understand that Amendment No. 18 has been wrongly marshalled.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Powers of Commission]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: I believe I am right in thinking that Amendment No. 19 has been called. Amendment No. 22 is grouped with the amendment and is consequential. Amendment No. 19 seeks to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 3.
Subsection (1) states that,
"the Commission may do anything which it considers—

(a) is necessary or appropriate for, or for facilitating, the discharge of its functions",

and so on. That is all-embracing. Subsection (2) states that it may in particular do that which is set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g),
"to give the Lord Chancellor any advice which it may consider appropriate in relation to matters concerning any of its functions".

509
If one wanted a striking example of a completely unnecessary provision, that last paragraph is it. However, subsection (2), which specifies the particulars of subsection (1), is quite unnecessary. A few Sessions ago, I used to complain of particulars being unnecessarily given of a generality. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern used to say disarmingly, "I admit it is not strictly necessary, but it is useful to let Parliament know the powers which will be exercised".
There are many other more economical ways of letting Parliament, or the public who read Hansard, know, without having a lengthy subsection which is printed and re-printed at vast expense at every stage of the Bill and then the statute. In my respectful submission, we can happily get rid of subsection (2); and we shall be very pleased to do so in a Bill which is by no means free from prolixity.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) refers to the power to make loans. Is a grant with a condition as to repayment not a loan? If it is, it has already been covered in the previous paragraph.
Paragraph (d) refers to the power to invest money. But subsection (3) provides that the commission has no power to borrow money or,
"to acquire or hold shares in bodies corporate".
Does that really mean that the commission may not invest in equities but must solely invest in gilts? The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, knows much more about the issue than I do, but even a trustee has for the past 30 years been enabled to invest in equities. Why not the unfortunate commission? I have tabled a later amendment to deal with that. At the moment, I am content with trying to get rid of the unnecessary subsection (2). I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 because of pre-emption.
Lord Goodhart: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mentioned my name, perhaps I may say that I should not think it appropriate for the legal services commission to invest in equities. It is in no way comparable with the ordinary situation of a trustee. Nor do I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, except to the limited extent that I should have thought it more appropriate to find general power provisions of this kind in Schedule 1 rather than in the body of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I appreciate the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to shorten the Bill. He would achieve a considerable shortening through Amendment No. 19. His score so far is that if he wins on "or" against "and", he will have reduced the Bill by one letter rather than by one word. So he is certainly entitled to go for broke on this amendment.
The argument that the noble and learned Lord put sounds reasonable because subsection (1) is fairly all-embracing. However, there are good precedents, not
510
only in legislation, for the provision in subsection (2). The Lord Chancellor is given this power under the Legal Aid Act 1988. Anyone familiar with the memorandum and articles of companies knows that although there is always a catch-all provision which states that in accordance with the objectives they can do what they like, it is considered helpful, as in this case, to spell out the detail of what companies may do—otherwise that may be challenged and be the subject of unnecessary litigation. Therefore, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that it would be desirable here to follow precedent and allow the subsection to stand as part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, makes the point that one might have a separate schedule for it. However, I suspect that that might be more complicated. I think that the noble Lord referred to including the provision in a schedule.
Lord Goodhart: In Schedule 1.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Moving provisions between clauses and schedules is a minor part of the revising functions of this Chamber. However, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that it would be inappropriate for the commission to invest money in equities. I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I regret that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is as bad as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 42, after ("Chancellor") insert (", whether at his request or not,").
The noble Lord said: It will not have escaped the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that one of the themes running through the many amendments tabled to the Bill concerns the proper relationship between the legal services commission and the noble and learned Lord's department. The amendments to Clause 3(2)(g) seek further to illuminate that distinction. Were they to be accepted, subsection (2)(g) would read:
"to give the Lord Chancellor any advice, whether at his request or not, which it [the legal services commission] may consider appropriate in relation to matters concerning any of its functions which it will make public".
There may be occasions on which the legal services commission wishes to make clear its views on a matter which diverges from the views of the noble and learned Lord's department. In those circumstances, we believe it entirely proper that there should be a statutory basis upon which it can formulate its decision to make those differences public. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment would provide that the legal services commission could give the Lord Chancellor any advice about any of its functions, with or without the prior request of the Lord Chancellor, and would require the commission to

511
publish that advice. The Government intend that the legal services commission should be free at any time to advise the Lord Chancellor about any of its functions. For this reason, there is nothing in the Bill as its stands which prevents the commission from providing the Lord Chancellor with any advice it considers necessary concerning his functions, whether or not the Lord Chancellor has requested such advice. Therefore, the first part of the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary.
Advice given by the commission will be published in accordance with the open government code of practice. But advice about policy issues under consideration is protected under the code; that is to say, the open government code of practice introduced by our predecessors. The purpose of that is to preserve the frankness and candour of internal discussions on policy issues. The complexities and details of the code would be difficult to capture in statutory language. For that reason, I believe that the question of publication is best left to the code. However, I have no difficulty in giving an undertaking that publication will be effected in accordance with the terms of our predecessors' code.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his helpful reply, upon which I shall reflect. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a brief point in a renewed attempt to shorten the Bill. Subsection (4) allows the commission to delegate its functions. Is that necessary? I understood the rule to be that a delegate may not sub-delegate. Subject to the fresher knowledge of the law of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I know of no rule which prevents a body which is not a delegate from delegating further. Incidentally, I see my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce in the Chamber and perhaps I may appeal to him. He is silent and has not contradicted me. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 3(4) provides the power for the commission to regulate its business and to delegate the discharge of some of its functions. It will delegate powers, for example, to franchise solicitors. The provision puts beyond doubt that there is such a power to delegate and it already exists in current legislation. Such a power has therefore already been approved by Parliament and it appears to be right to put the power of the commission to delegate beyond any doubt on the face of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My noble and learned friend did not attempt to deal with my argument that the provision is unnecessary if the commission already has a power to delegate. I am bound to ask whether he is
512
really interested in shortening the Bill and getting rid of a completely unnecessary provision. It is no answer to say that the provision makes the position plain. Of course it makes it plain, but it is plain anyhow. One is occupying six lines unnecessarily by stating that the commission can do something which it can do in any case. I do not press the amendment at this stage, but I am bound to say that that was one of the most unsatisfactory answers to an amendment that I have ever heard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have one further short question about a matter to which I have already referred. The commission can invest money but not in bodies corporate. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said he believes that it should not have the power to invest in equities. If he says that I am bound to attach considerable weight to it. However, can the commission invest in property? It seems strange that if it can invest in property—and I can see no reason which precludes it—it should not be able to invest in shares in bodies corporate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was able to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the commission could not invest in equities. However, I shall have to write to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about its power to invest in property.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall be still more grateful if his letter is proficient.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
ESTIMATES AND ACCOUNTS
(" . The Commission shall prepare and publish estimates and accounts to show the following—

(a) the setting up costs of all the services for which they are responsible;

(b) the administrative running costs for all the services for which they are responsible;

(c) the cost of the legal services for which they are responsible; and

(d) the cost of disbursements within those legal services for which they are responsible.").

The noble Lord said: In tabling this amendment, I am aware that in paragraph 16 of Schedule 1, the question of accounts and audit is dealt with. My amendment is a probing amendment.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recall that, when he presented this Bill at Second Reading, he laid great emphasis on the importance of containing the costs of legal aid for both criminal and

513
civil matters. But Members of the Committee will not be unaware that a new institution is being set up and it is bound to cost money.
My amendment seeks to provide an opportunity for the Committee and, indeed, the general public, to examine the extent of the costs which will be incurred as a result of the establishment and operation of the legal services commission. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure that I entirely follow this. Under Clause 6(2), the Lord Chancellor is obliged to pay to the commission the sums which he determines are appropriate for the funding of services by the commission as part of the community legal service. He may determine the manner in which, and the times at which, the sums are to be paid to the commission and may impose conditions on the payment of the sums.
I shall be agreeing a financial memorandum with the commission under Clause 6(2)(b). As the noble Lord said, paragraphs 16(1) and 16(2) of Schedule 1 impose an obligation on the commission to maintain accounts. I see no gap in that regard and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I may intervene briefly. I have some considerable sympathy with the purpose of the amendment. While I certainly hope that it will happen in any event, it will be extremely important to have accounts which are comprehensible and which really explain what is happening.
In any accounts provided, I should like to see the breakdown between the spending of the community legal service under the different heads of service that it can provide under Clause 5(1); for example, as between information, advice, representation, education and so on. It would also be extremely helpful to know how the funds spent by the community legal service were broken down as between the various heads of spending under Clause 7(3); for example, by contracts, grants or loans, to persons or bodies to provide services, by establishing and maintaining bodies to provide services and by providing services itself and so on.
I hope that the accounts will be sufficiently informative to enable us to see in some detail how the money is being spent.
The Lord Chancellor: I am happy to write to the noble Lord as to the form of the proposed accounts and the detail which they are likely to show.
Lord Kingsland: If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his response, is saying that the matters which are covered by Amendment No. 24 are covered by Clause 6(2), I am entirely content with his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Directions and guidance]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 64, 65, 74, 75, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 204 which stand in my name and those of other noble Lords.
As a result of the most welcome decision by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accept substantially all the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, most of the amendments are now otiose. I am extremely glad to see that the chairman of that committee is now present and has taken his seat.
However, that is not wholly true of Amendment No. 25 because that raises a perhaps rather more fundamental point which is, as I indicated earlier, the nature of the relationship between the legal services commission and the Lord Chancellor.
It is clearly the intention behind this Bill that the legal services commission should be under the very close control of the Lord Chancellor although it will now be the case that in important aspects that control will be exercised through statutory instruments and will therefore involve a degree of parliamentary control. That raises a question as to whether it is desirable that, whether by statutory instrument or not, the Lord Chancellor should have that degree of control over the legal services commission.
I can see very good reasons—for administrative convenience and for control over exercising the Government's policy—why the Lord Chancellor should wish to do so, but at the same time, there are aspects of that matter which cause me serious concern. Is the legal services commission to be truly independent or is it to be, in effect, no more than an agency or, one might even say, "the Lord Chancellor's poodle"?
In the case of the funding of medical services, it is appropriate that the Government should retain some detailed control over how the funds which they provide are spent. But the funding of legal and medical services are very different. As regards medical services, there are arguments about priorities, but there are no conflicts of interest between the Government and those who are seeking the funding.
In the case of legal services, there are clear conflicts of interest. In this regard, I do not rely on what is at first sight the obvious case of criminal process where the conflict of interest is more apparent than real because the decision of the court or jury in criminal proceedings rarely affects government policy. In any event, this Bill gives the Lord Chancellor less control over spending on criminal cases than over the funding of civil cases through the community legal service's fund.
On the civil side, judicial review may be used to challenge decisions of Ministers and public authorities. In future, human rights cases may involve challenging the decisions of public authorities, secondary legislation and, indeed, Acts of Parliament. Decisions of the court on welfare and housing cases, for example, may again have extremely serious fiscal, financial consequences for the Government.
I believe that it is in the interests of justice and the separation of powers that the commission should have a higher degree of independence from the Lord Chancellor and the Government than it does under this Bill as presently drafted. We have already had some quotations from the Select Committee's report, but perhaps I may refer to paragraph 1, which has not been quoted so far. It states:
"Many of the changes are made in the bill itself but important issues are left to be settled by the use of delegated powers cast in wide, enabling terms. Some of the issues to which these suggested delegated powers relate are of fundamental importance within a democratic society. They affect the extent to which a citizen may be granted or denied access to justice to promote or defend rights and liberties. They raise for consideration how far control by the state of the means of access to justice may erode the separation of powers and put individuals at a disadvantage when seeking to defend themselves against claims brought by the very government which has the power to prescribe how effectively they may be represented."
It was no part of the function of the Select Committee to decide the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the legal services commission. The factors referred to in the report indicate a strong case for a greater degree of separation. I am not saying that that should be complete. I am not attempting to argue that the specific powers of direction given, for example, in Clauses 6, 7 and 9 should not be exercised by statutory instrument. I am concerned about the width of the general power to give direction. Although my worries about that are much less now that there will be a greater degree of parliamentary control, my worries are not wholly satisfied.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 25 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 27 and 28.
6 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I shall listen with interest to the replies to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. My noble and learned friend, having spoken so comfortably to Jerusalem in his response to an earlier debate, it is not necessary for me to deploy arguments relating to the amendments in this group that stand in my name. In due course, I shall not be moving them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I advert to Amendments No. 27 and 33 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, put his name.
The proposed new legal aid scheme is very different from that which it will replace. The existing scheme is based on financial eligibility and the merits of the case, although one must concede that there are some deficiencies in the way that it operates—hence the Bill.
The new scheme is based on the application of available resources. The Government propose to give greater discretion to the commission as to how it operates the civil legal aid scheme. It follows that the principles that the commission should adopt in discharging its functions should be subject to proper scrutiny and debate. Consequently, Amendment No. 27
516
is directed at ascertaining from my noble and learned friend the kind of consultation that he proposes before proceeding to the second phase.
As to Amendment No. 33, it is right that my noble and learned friend should retain the power to give directions regarding individual cases—and that is what the amendment seeks to provide. I concede that it is extremely unlikely that power will be brought into operation with any frequency, but multi-party actions and others could benefit from legal aid under specific direction. Although legal aid will be withdrawn from personal injury cases generally, claims such as those over thalidomide or asbestosis might come to light, which raise interesting rights on the statute of limitations since the law affecting it was changed. The Lord Chancellor should have the power to direct that legal aid will be available in such cases, which could fall into the realm of being public scandals.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Having heard the extremely important accommodation announced by the Lord Chancellor earlier, it will be difficult to strike the right balance between direction and arrangements that must be subject to parliamentary agreement. I want to raise an issue relating to the effectiveness of the legal services commission. On any view, this revolution in legal aid will depend to a considerable degree on the competence of the commission and the people who sit on it.
I urge the Lord Chancellor to think long and hard about retaining anything like the degree of direction that he is currently permitted under Clause 4(1), which broadly gives him carte blanche vis-à-vis telling the commission what to do. I remember sitting as one of the first members of the National Lottery Charities Board, which was subject to ministerial directions. Anyone who has sat on a quango will concur that how far its members can be overruled or directed is a sensitive issue.
As I believe that the reconstruction of legal aid that is now in train is of the greatest conceivable importance, I believe also that attracting and retaining people of the highest calibre to serve on the commission is a sine qua non of the success of the whole enterprise. Cutting back radically on direction, while appearing to be an act of folly if one is in the shoes of the Lord Chancellor, might in the long term be the better part of valour.
Lord Kingsland: In view of the Lord Chancellor's most helpful response to Amendment No.1, I share entirely the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, of the appropriate approach to the amendments—so I shall sit down.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I wish to speak to the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, drew attention which has the effect of contradicting Clause 4(3). A clause having much the same effect exists in the Legal Aid Act 1998. The idea is to prevent the Lord Chancellor from intervening in a particular case. It does not prevent him making directions about the class of case, but it does prevent him from intervening in individual cases. That would be a gross interference in the separation of powers. That is

517
certainly the principle upon which such a clause rested. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, may be able to convince me otherwise but for my part, that is an important protection for the separation of powers in respect of individual cases.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, drew attention to the fact that I have already shown and to a large degree accepted the concerns expressed about the wide nature of the Lord Chancellor's powers in Clause 4 to give directions to the commission. I am seeking to find a way of meeting those concerns that preserves the flexibility that is essential for the new scheme to work effectively while providing appropriate lines of accountability.
Let me first explain what was intended by Clause 4 before I turn to the amendment. This clause confers powers on the Lord Chancellor to give the legal services commission directions and guidance about the exercise of its functions. The commission will be required to follow any directions and to consider guidance.
The powers contained in this clause must be seen in the context of the wider structure of the new schemes for providing publicly funded legal services, and particularly the community legal service fund. We are proposing a flexible system which can use the available resources to deliver cost-effective help, targeted towards the areas where it can do most good. The current legal aid scheme cannot achieve that.
The legal services commission will be under a duty to establish the need for legal services and to deploy the available resources to best effect to help meet those needs. It will do that within a framework of national priorities set by the Government, and in a way that seeks to secure the best possible value for money.
It is important that it is empowered to do so in as flexible a way as possible. Necessarily however this means that the commission will have a wide discretion as to the way it works and delivers services. At the same time, the Government must have the power to ensure that the commission exercises its functions in a way that reflects its policy objectives and in particular its priorities for the community legal services fund. Some of those will take the form of directions in relation to the annual budget that the commission should set within the overall community legal service fund. Let me draw attention to Clause 6(4) which states:
"Directions given by the Lord Chancellor under section 4 may impose requirements on the Commission as to the descriptions of services to be funded from any specified amount paid into the Community Legal Service Fund".
We intend to set separate budgets for civil and family cases; but there may also be specific categories of service or case where it would be appropriate to indicate spending parameters. By way of illustration, in October of last year I directed the Legal Aid Board to allocate a minimum of £20 million for contracts with non-profit-making advice agencies.
A comparison can be drawn with the National Health Service. That too is a complex scheme providing a wide range of different services to people with needs of varying priority, from cosmetic surgery to life-saving procedures. And the National Health Service has
518
considerable discretion, within a framework set by Ministers, to find the best ways to meet those needs and to adapt to changing demands. I have not heard it suggested that every decision about priorities and every detailed policy change affecting the National Health Service should be subject to secondary legislation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Is it not the case nonetheless that many of the major functions of the NHS are protected by statute, such as closure of hospitals?
The Lord Chancellor: Of course. But I am making clear that it is not every policy decision, every detailed policy change and every decision about priorities over the field that can conceivably be dealt with legislatively.
The way in which this will work is that the details of the community legal service fund will be defined by a number of different mechanisms according to the nature of the issue in question. The details of the services to be provided, their price and the quality controls to providers will all be contained in contracts between the commission and individual providers. The criteria and procedures for granting help will be set out in the funding code, to which we will be turning later. The rules about contributions and costs, which directly affect the obligations of individual members of the public, will continue to be for regulations, subject to negative resolution. Finally, the power in this clause is concerned with directions and guidance to the commission itself—the responsible administrative body—as to how it should exercise its power and discharge its duties.
The direction-making power therefore is the means by which the Government can set their priorities and other policy objectives for the scheme—for example, objectives about geographic distribution of services and choice. In some respects the amendments before the Committee are too restrictive. They will require all instructions that I might give, whatever their nature or importance, to be brought before both Houses of Parliament for debate. However, some directions are likely to deal with the allocation of money voted by Parliament; others will deal with detailed operational matters. The accountability for those matters is already adequately provided through general ministerial accountability to Parliament and, in my view, that is not appropriate for secondary legislation.
On the other hand, the proposals that I expect to bring forward later will in some ways go further than the amendments which I intend to bring forward to meet the recommendations of the delegated powers committee. I intend in other clauses to introduce statements of purpose for both schemes in Part I of the Bill and to provide that the Lord Chancellor may only make directions that are consistent with those statements. I hope also to amend Clause 4 to define more closely the various types of direction in terms of their nature or subject matter that the Lord Chancellor may make, where appropriate, by orders subject to parliamentary approval. These amendments might also meet the concerns behind the amendments to Clause 4 standing

519
in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips, to remove the direction-making powers entirely.
I shall wish to consider further the amendments suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I suspect that a duty to consult the professional bodies and others may not be appropriate having regard to the restrictive services in which I now envisage using the direction-making powers. But it may be a different matter—that is to say, in relation to consultation—in relation to any powers which are to be exercised by regulation or by order.
In common with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I have grave reservations about the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—the amendment to Clause 4 which would leave out from page 3, line 14, the words "shall not" and insert "may". I share exactly the same reservations as my noble and learned predecessor in relation to weakening the protection in Clause 4(3) that those Members of the Committee seek. Clause 4(3) is intended to prevent interference by the Executive in the decisions of the commission in relation to specific cases. I agree with my noble and learned predecessor that it is supportive of the separation of powers and it is a safeguard that has always existed. As at present advised, I believe it is a necessary safeguard. Therefore, I would need considerable persuasion to dilute its effect, as sought, because if it were amended in the manner suggested, it would read,
"Directions and guidance under this section may be given in relation to individual cases".
In fact, it is a prohibition that such directions and guidance "shall not be given" in respect of individual cases.
I thought it would be helpful to make those general observations in the context of the debate. In the light of what I have said, I invite—
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may make one point. I understand the fundamental point that both he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, have made in relation to the separation of powers. Under the new system, how would such scandalous cases as the thalidomide and the asbestosis cases be dealt with if legal aid and charitable funding were not available? Would they just fall, or would some special provision be required on the part of the Lord Chancellor to deal with those situations?
The Lord Chancellor: In considering those matters the noble Lord may care to study Clause 7(7).
Lord Goodhart: I have listened with great interest and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the detailed explanation of the thinking behind Clause 4. Obviously, I shall read what he has said with great interest. In deciding whether or
520
not to table Amendment No. 25 again, I shall have regard to the terms of the amendment which he intends to table. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 10, after ("its") insert ("administrative").
The noble and learned Lord said: The constitutional background to this matter has been raised and argued cogently in the report of the Select Committee and was discussed on Amendment No.1. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook to bring forward an amendment on Report which would go some way, if not the whole way, to satisfy your Lordships about the width of the legislative powers which the Executive has taken. The matter has been taken further by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and Lord Clinton-Davis.
Amendment No. 28 is an attempt to narrow the scope of Clause 4(1) by limiting the direction to the discharge of administrative function. In view of what I have said about the way that this will develop before Report, I see no advantage in moving Amendment No. 28, unless my noble and learned friend or any of your Lordships would like to say something specifically on it. Unless your Lordships indicate that you wish me not to do so, I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("and guidance").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 32 is grouped with Amendment No. 29, which was designed to leave out subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 4. The object was to try to clarify the relationship between directions, guidance and matters to be taken into account. Your Lordships discussed this matter yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will remember. I believe that this is too big and amorphous a subject to be discussed at this stage. Again, I propose to enter into correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who replied yesterday. I believe that is the more satisfactory method of trying to clarify our minds. Unless your Lordships would like me to do so, I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No.34:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert ("or group actions").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 34 has the simple purpose of seeking to establish whether or not the phrase "individual cases" includes group actions.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend Lord Kingsland was commendably brief. I shall not quite match his brevity, but I shall seek to approach it.
The purpose of the amendment is to add the phrase "or group actions" at the end of Clause 4(3). At present, Clause 4(3) prohibits the Lord Chancellor, as we discussed in the course of our previous debate, from issuing guidance or directions to the commission in relation to individual cases. In this country, group actions have largely centred around mass disasters, either in the form of incidents like the Zeebrugge ferry disaster, the Kings Cross fire or product liability claims. However, a group action, as far as the commission is concerned, is no more than a collection of individual cases where the issues and the defendant are the same, or substantially the same. In my view, individual cases in context would include group actions. The Lord Chancellor would not give directions or guidance to the commission about them, but would act in accordance with Clause 4(3). Therefore, in my view, the addition of the words proposed by the amendment is unnecessary and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have one brief point on Clause 4 and it relates to subsection (5), which says:
"Directions under this section may be varied or revoked".
I wonder whether that is necessary. I should have thought that common sense would determine that they certainly can be varied and revoked. It is quite unnecessary to say so. The reason why it is in the Bill is that it comes up on the computer in the draftsman's office, but if we can get rid of it we shall have achieved more than one line of elimination.
There is one other question relating to the wording that directions,
"may be varied or revoked".
Does that not imply that guidance may not be varied or revoked? Would it not be better in every way to get rid of subsection (5)?
The Lord Chancellor: I sometimes wonder in what direction I should turn. I dare say that there might be circumstances in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would argue that directions are of such an important legislative character that they should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Indeed, he might further argue that for such directions to be varied they should equally be subject to such parliamentary procedure. Therefore, I do not accept that the variation of a direction is something for which the statute should not provide. Nevertheless, in the contrast drawn by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, between the power to vary or revoke directions and
522
silence about guidance, it is possible that he has a point. I am not sure that he does, however, and I should like to think about it and write to him on the matter.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No.38:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICE AND CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE REVIEW BODY
(".—(1) There shall be a body known as the Community Legal Services and Criminal Defence Service Review Body (in this section referred to as "the Review Body").
(2) The Review Body's functions shall be—

(a) to advise the Lord Chancellor as to appropriate target incomes for those providing services under the Community Legal Service or the Criminal Defence Service;

(b) to advise the Lord Chancellor as to the pricing of contracts so as to secure those target levels.

(3) In advising the Lord Chancellor, the Review Body shall suggest target levels which enable those receiving services from the Commission to obtain good quality services, and subject to that, provide the best value for money.
(4) The Commission shall consist of—

(a) not fewer than seven members, and

(b) not more than twelve members;

but the Lord Chancellor may by order substitute for either or both of the numbers for the time being specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) such other number or numbers as he thinks appropriate.
(5) The members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor shall appoint one of the members to chair the Commission.
(6) In appointing persons to be members of the Commission the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the desirability of securing that the Commission includes persons with experience in or knowledge of—

(a) the provision of services which the Commission can fund as part of the Community Legal Service or Criminal Defence Service,

(b) the work of the courts,

(c) social conditions, and

(d) management.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this proposed new clause is to establish a review body along the lines of the review body covering doctors and dentists. It would advise on the level of fees necessary to ensure that the community legal service provides a good quality service which is available throughout the country. It is designed to reduce the risk that low payment for contracted work might lead to inadequate quality or to there being an insufficient number of contractors in some parts of the country. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: Sometimes the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, surprises us because he sits down so rapidly. However, I know that it is highly appreciated in this Chamber if speeches are made as short as possible. I find the amendment somewhat difficult to follow both in substance and in wording. As far as concerns the wording, which is perhaps not the most important thing, it talks about a review body but in fact it is simply concerned with reviewing incomes. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) refer to "the Commission", but the wording

523
looks remarkably similar to that to be found in Clause 1 of the Bill. However, perhaps the reference to "the Commission" is meant to refer to "the Review Body".
We are accustomed on matters of substance to consult salary review bodies, such as those which deal with doctors and dentists and, indeed, others who work for the health service like nurses. There is also the well-known Top Salaries Review Body which deals with generals, air vice-marshals and judges. They are all in the public sector and are concerned to ensure that salaries in the public sector do not get behind those in the private sector. Indeed, inflation, which the private sector seems to be capable of coping with better than the public sector, has often led the latter to need a review body in order to ensure that its salaries do not slip behind inflation. That also applies to the standard of living of those in the private sector, which has often improved at an even better rate than inflation.
The amendment seems to be designed to assist those who are in the private sector; that is, those who are in the business of offering their legal services in competition with others—presumably competition both on the basis of price and in terms of quality of service. It seems as if this is some sort of attempt to obtain for lawyers the combined advantage of being in the free market economy and yet also having the benefit of secure or more secure incomes.
Finally, this proposed new clause is intended to follow Clause 4. It would form part of Part I of the Bill, the purpose of which, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has repeated more than once, is to provide access to justice for those who seek to pursue claims of various kinds. It is meant to be for the users and not the providers; in other words, it is meant to provide facilities for the users of legal services rather than to provide succour for the providers.
Baroness Crawley: The effect of the amendment would be to create a review body for the community legal service and/or for the criminal defence service. I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Borrie in the matter. Current review bodies are there to represent the interests of the public sector. It seems to me that, at best, this is an inappropriate amendment. The public, who are familiar with the culture of review bodies which protect those in the public sector, would not understand the proposal for such a body designed to protect those who are obviously very much in the private sector. Like my noble friend Lord Borrie, I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for pointing out, first, what is an obvious misprint and, secondly, something which I am sure is entirely my fault. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of the proposed amendment clearly belong elsewhere. I apologise to the Committee for the error which, as I said, I am sure is entirely mine.
The Lord Chancellor: I have to confess that I was rather puzzled that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seemed to have such an affection for Clause 1(3) that
524
he borrowed it, without a word of acknowledgement, in order to add it to his interesting suggestion about a new review body.
I tend to wish to echo what my noble friends behind me have said. Review bodies generally exist to protect groups such as public sector employees from the risk of what I suppose could be called "exploitation by the state". However, providers of services under the community legal service and the criminal defence service will be characteristically different from public employees. Indeed, most will have sources of income other than those funded by the legal services commission. They will be professional solicitors and barristers operating essentially in the private sector. They will be competing with other service providers for contracts for publicly-funded legal services.
I cannot accept these amendments. They seem to me to be aimed simply at targeting public money to keep lawyers in the manner to which they have become accustomed. I should have thought we had by now made it plain enough that we are modernising the provision of legal services to concentrate public money on those who most need it. It is not intended to create more jobs for public servants supporting a review body, nor to ensure that lawyers, all of whom work in the private sector, obtain a certain portion of the public finances.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that if this amendment were passed, the money spent in meeting targets and running the review body would have to come from the money allocated for the delivery of services. When the noble Lord responds I shall be pleased if he could inform us which cases I should no longer fund in order to pay for the costs of the review body.
The truth is that those who require certainty of income seek salaried employment. The Committee will recall from Second Reading that a number of noble Lords spoke at length about the perceived perils of employed lawyers. If lawyers wish to provide services from within the private sector to the public sector for reward, they must accept the rigours of the market and compete for contracts to undertake publicly funded work.
The Government want good lawyers to do legal aid work. We want to have arrangements which encourage good lawyers to do this in sufficient number and to the right quality, and seek to put such provisions in place in this Bill. However, the Government have no duty to help lawyers achieve target incomes. We are unwilling to establish a review body whose task would be to help to achieve that. On reflection I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I shall not press this amendment, but there are some matters to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred which give me some cause for concern. First, as I understand it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will furnish advocacy rights in the courts to public employed officials in the Crown Prosecution Service, and perhaps in the newly-established defence service. Those officials will certainly fall within the category of public servants to which he and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley,

525
referred. Therefore to that extent the review body is on all fours with the other review bodies to which I referred.
As regards the private sector, to the extent that the private sector is financed by funds coming through the community legal service and the defence service, these funds are public funds. The object of using these public funds is to provide access to justice for people who deserve it. There must come a point in the individual financing of these funds when the money provided to independent lawyers in private practice from the public sector is so low as either to discourage them from participating in the provision of publicly funded legal services at all, or seriously and adversely to affect the quality of the services provided.
While I have no intention of pressing the concept of the review body, the nature of the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to me about the terms on which the private sector provides its services gives rise to some cause for concern which no doubt will be expressed in more detail when later amendments arise which touch on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
CONSUMERS' COMMITTEES
(" .—(1) The Commission shall establish committees, to be known as consumers' committees, for the purposes of this Part.
(2) Each consumers' committee shall be appointed for an area in England and Wales as determined by the Commission.
(3) Each consumers' committee shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by the Commission after consultation with the Lord Chancellor; and

(b) such other members as the Commission, after consultation with the chairman, may from time to time appoint.

(4) It shall be the duty of the consumers' committees—

(a) to keep under review matters affecting the interests of consumers of legal services in the committee's area; and

(b) to advise the Commission on any matter relating to the discharge of its functions.").

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with Amendment No. 39, Amendments Nos. 49 and 83 which are consequential on Amendment No. 39. Amendment No. 39 seeks to build on the work that has been carried out, and is still being carried out, by the regional legal services committees, and to reinforce them and the underlying intention of the Bill by establishing that users of legal services stand at the heart of the new community legal service.
The White Paper states at paragraph 2.12 on page 15 that the legal services commission,
"will find ways to work in partnership with local communities, local government and other funders. These partnerships will build on the links and structures already established by the Legal Aid Board through its Regional Legal Services Committees; these will continue to have the role of advising the LSC on how best to deploy the resources of the Community Legal Service fund to meet priorities across the region as a whole".
The establishment of consumer committees would be a positive way to demonstrate that it is intended they will play a full part in providing a network of committees to assist the commission to identify local need and advise it on how it should discharge its duties. Although the regional legal services committees have a vital role to play in assessing the need for legal services, gathering information on the supply of legal and related services, identifying regional priorities, developing a regional strategy and monitoring implementation of that strategy, they are neither independent nor are they focused on the needs of users of legal services. A member of the Legal Aid Board currently chairs each RLSC, which also receives administrative support from the local legal aid office. In addition, the legal aid area office manager is an ex officio member of each committee.
A new consumer committee structure would be of assistance in ensuring that real demand and needs are being met from the point of view of those who use legal services and those organisations which have experience and knowledge of working with legal service users. These organisations in particular are well placed to gauge demand and unmet need in an objective way. The amendment seeks explicitly to establish the principle that consumers and their representative organisations have an important and independent role to play. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although I do not hold myself out as agreeing totally that the area committees which the noble Lord has put forward should be known necessarily as consumer committees, I think he has raised an important matter which is not otherwise dealt with in the Bill; namely, how the legal aid scheme to be available under this Bill is to be dealt with locally.
It so happens that under the present legal aid scheme we have for many years had area legal aid committees. Indeed I served on one many years ago which covered south-east England. I believe it covered the counties of Kent, Surrey and Sussex. We had the responsibility of deciding in individual cases whether legal aid should be granted.
I may have missed something, but I have been looking through Clause 5 and later clauses to see whether there is anything in the Bill analogous to area legal aid committees, with all their detailed responsibilities in individual cases. If I may have the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I am very anxious for him to indicate whether there is anything that is either in the Bill or that he has in mind for dealing with cases locally. One way of doing so would be through the committees proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, provided that we give them adequate powers. This is a very important matter. We cannot have legal aid entirely centralised.
Lord Meston: I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Clinton-Davis. It is important that the commission has adequate and up-to-date information from individual areas, particularly as an inevitable effect of this Bill will be to reduce the availability in certain areas of firms able to do legal aid

527
work as it is presently understood. If there is to be a selective reduction in the availability of firms able to do this sort of work, it is very important that the commission should have local information provided by those on the ground.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the use of the word "consumer"—which we debated earlier this afternoon—is not too appropriate here. I could not help noticing that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, used the word "consumer" rather than "user". If this amendment, in any form, is to become part of the Bill, I suggest that the word "consumer" should be replaced by the expression "users of legal services"—perhaps excluding convicted criminals.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of the amendment is to set up committees of consumer representatives which would keep consumer interests under review in relation to the provision of legal services in each area. I have listened carefully to this debate and I shall certainly write to the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Clinton-Davis, on their concerns.
However, the whole focus of the new scheme is to create partnerships at local level between the local authorities, local providers of services, advice centres and law centres through the medium of the community legal service. It is intended to have a sharp local focus, to entail the ascertainment of need locally and the development of plans to meet these local needs.
The consumer interest is first of all to be represented on the commission under Clause 1, and it will also be represented on the regional legal services committees appointed by the commission under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. They will be acutely concerned with the ascertainment of local conditions.
Further, these regional legal services committees around the country will include representatives of consumer interests. How else could the commission assess need under Clause 5(4)? Subsection (4) provides that:
"The Commission shall also inform itself about the demand for services and the provision of such services … and quality of the services provided".
There is no doubt that it is intended that there should be a sharp appreciation of local need through the medium of these bodies.
I am reluctant to accept this amendment because, in my view, it would create an extra layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. However, I shall consider the debate and fulfil my undertaking to write to both noble Lords as I have promised.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank my noble and learned friend for his semi-positive response. I shall welcome his letters. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Meston, for their contributions. I entirely agree that the use of the word "consumer" is unhelpful in this context. Certainly I would commend the use of the phrase "users of legal services", or something
528
comparable, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested, if the idea underlying this amendment were eventually to find favour with my noble and learned friend.
I am concerned about the relationship between the community legal services and the regional legal services committees. We need to concentrate on that. I know that my noble and learned friend will deal with that in his letter, but I am not convinced that having a particular consumer representative on one body will provide the degree of expertise and local or regional awareness that is currently being provided by the RLSCs.
I accept that, as indicated in the White Paper, it is intended to provide a sharp legal focus. I just want to see it sharpened up a little bit more. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [The Community Legal Service]:
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 42 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment seeks to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 5. I can deal with it very shortly. If it is left out, would the commission be precluded from doing the things that that subsection says it can do? To put it another way, if the subsection were left out, could not the commission do precisely those things which it is enabled to do in the subsection? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to advise noble Lords that if Amendment No. 43 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 44 to 53 inclusive.
Lord Borrie: I am not sure whether I know the answer to the specific question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. This clause is very instructive in giving a role to the legal services commission by linking it with other funders of services such as local authorities and citizens advice bureaux. I shall not repeat what I said earlier on another amendment about the value of citizens advice bureaux in giving frontline advice to people who may have a problem but perhaps do not yet know whether it is a legal problem. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux provides a great deal of support, with the aid of lawyers, in the form of providing information, very often of a legal kind, to the people who work locally in branches, who may be volunteers or paid people. But it seems of some value that in Clause 5(4) there is mention of accreditation of other organisations and of monitoring those organisations.
7 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble Lord really think that it could not be done without that subsection?
Lord Borrie: I have already indicated to the noble and learned Lord that I am not sure what the specific answer to that question is. However, because I know the

529
noble and learned Lord has a general feeling, which he has made clear on other occasions, that the Bill should as far as possible be shortened and that one does not want unnecessary detail, a feeling with which I concur, I was simply indicating that there are some useful words, including monitoring and accreditation, in this subsection which may be helpful when in the future people are asking what is intended by the clause.
Baroness Goudie: Law centres make legal services available to individuals who would not otherwise have access to them. They have a broad interest in local communities. If this subsection were to be removed, we would not have the services of the local authorities which would assist in funding and of the other bodies involved. This is an important clause in terms of assisting in the running of law centres and ensuring that law centres may flourish in parts of the country where there are no law centres at the moment and where there is a great need of the services they have to offer, especially to those who are greatly deprived. I may speak a little more on this subject later in our proceedings.
The Lord Chancellor: It is surely not the most important question whether the commission would have the power to do these things in the absence of Clause 5(4). The more important issue is whether this is an absolutely central provision which goes to the very heart of what the commission is about and tells ordinary people in fairly clear English what the object of the new scheme is.
Clause 5(1) states:
"The Commission shall establish, maintain and develop a service known as the Community Legal Service with a view to there being available to members of the public",
a range of services. That is the primary purpose. Subsection (4) addresses how the commission is to go about doing that. Unsurprisingly, what it has to do is inform itself, under Clause 5(4), about the demand for services of the descriptions listed in subsection (1), then find out to what extent they are actually provided and what is their quality and then go on, in co-operation with appropriate authorities and other bodies, to see what can be done to meet the established demand. That appears to be very clear and very useful to have on the statute book for ordinary people to understand what the object of the scheme is. If Clause 5(4) were taken away, it would be taking away the provision that is central to the ascertainment of need which the community legal service is set up to meet and it would be taking away the provision that is equally central to the development of co-operative planning among all providers, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said, is essentially the raison d'être of the community legal service.
Amendment No. 48 is grouped with Amendment No. 43. Curiously, under Amendment No. 43, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, wants to remove the whole of Clause 5(4), but in Amendment No. 48 he wants to remove only the part providing for a co-operative development, led by the commission, to develop a community legal service. With respect, I have

530
difficulty in following this point. These provisions are central to the purposes of the community legal service and, for my part, I intend them to remain there.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I asked my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether, if the subsection were omitted, the commission could do exactly the thing which it is there said it can do. My noble and learned friend said that that is not the most important question. That may be so, but it was the question he was asked and it was the question that he did not answer. That is significant. This type of drafting is teaching one's grandmother to suck eggs. One really must leave a body like this to do the ordinary things that any sensible body would do. We cannot continue to clutter up the statute book with a whole number of unnecessary provisions.
My noble and learned friend said that the provision tells people in language they can understand what can be done. He referred to accreditation and monitoring. Is that the language which people normally use? In the end, my noble and learned friend must make up his mind whether he concedes that it is part of the duty of a Minister in charge of a Bill to avoid cluttering up the Bill with unnecessary provisions just because he wants to make everything plain. Does he not recognise that unnecessary provisions are very expensive to the taxpayer, with duplication in the Bill at every stage, and expensive to the user, who has to pay a large sum unless he is unfortunate enough to be in a government department?
I said at the outset of the Committee stage that I would not press to a Division any of my amendments. I shall of course observe that. But I hope that my noble and learned friend will not take that to be a seal of approval for his dealing with this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 38, after ("itself") insert ("and the public").
The noble Lord said: The simple purpose of this amendment is to require the commission to make public the information that it gathers under this subsection about the demand for services provided by the commission. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: Again, the noble Lord does not over-exert himself in developing the amendment, explaining it to the Committee or urging the cause of the amendment upon the Committee. Mercifully, I have read the amendment. It proposes that Clause 5 should be amended to place a duty on the commission to inform the public of the demand, or need, whichever word is chosen, for legal services. I welcome the noble Lord's support for the move to greater openness on the part of public bodies such as the commission.
However, I am not minded to accept the amendment as I believe it to be unnecessary. Schedule 1 already contains measures that will place a duty on the commission to publish an annual plan for each financial year. That annual plan will be laid before each House of Parliament.

531
The plan will show the commission's assessment of need and how it intends to meet the need for legal services over the forthcoming financial year. It will summarise the findings and advice of the regional legal services committees, which will have been published in full as regional strategies. The first of the regional strategies undertaken by the RLSCs were issued for public consultation in the autumn of last year. Further detail about the basis of the plan will be available under the open government code of practice. The commission will also be required to publish, under paragraph 14 of Schedule 1, an annual report on the commission's performance against the annual plan. Therefore, the public will be fully informed and the amendment is not necessary. On that account, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Kingsland: In response to the noble and learned Lord's elucidating and helpful response, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 45:
Page 3, line 38, after second ("the") insert ("current and probable future").
The noble Lord said: In view of government Amendments Nos. 46, 51 and 52, I do not propose to move this amendment or Amendments Nos. 47 and 50.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("demand") and insert ("need").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 and 52. These amendments would require the legal services commission to inform itself of the need for legal services and to plan what can be done towards meeting that need. The provision also requires the legal services commission to facilitate the planning by others of what can be done to meet the need for legal services. The amendment replaces the requirement for the commission to inform itself of "demand". I am grateful to the National Consumer Council and to the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for bringing this matter to the Lord Chancellor's attention through their amendments.
I cannot accept the noble Lords' amendments. I do not think there is any point in going into the reasons. I agree that the focus on need incorporates a concept of reaching those who do not currently seek help and is not merely a snapshot of current requests for information, advice and assistance in the same way as demand. The concept of need also clearly excludes unmeritorious demand, which is of obvious importance to our reforms of the justice system. The idea of matching the provision of legal services to the needs of local communities is at the heart of our vision of the community legal service. I invite the Committee to agree that Clause 5 be amended.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 3, line 40, leave out from second ("and") to end of line 41.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is yet another attempt to get rid of unnecessary words. The commission is to inform itself about the need for services, whether those services are on tap, the provision of such services and their quality. The subsection continues,
"and, in co-operation with such authorities and other bodies and persons as it considers appropriate".
it should meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b).
If the words were omitted, would the commission be precluded from doing what it is enjoined to do under paragraphs (a) and (b) if it co-operated with others whom it deemed appropriate?
I wish to put the matter again specifically. If these words were omitted, would the commission be precluded from acting in co-operation? That question can be answered yes or no. If, as I suspect, the answer is that the commission can act in co-operation in the absence of those words, what is the justification for including those words? I hope that I shall not hear about "flexibility" or "making things plain". I press the Minister to make absolutely clear whether those words make the slightest difference to the subsection. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): I must advise the Committee that, should this amendment be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 49 due to pre-emption.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It is important to note that subsection (4) does not merely give power to the commission, but imposes an extremely important duty upon it; namely, that it should seek to co-operate with other authorities. There is a tendency, particularly in some forms of central government organisation, to carry on as if it were not necessary to seek help from local organisations.
I was conscious of the other difficulty; namely, that if central government, with its money, comes into an area, the financially pressed local authority is apt to withdraw its resources from the area and leave matters to the Government. Local community services—local law centres, community law centres, or whatever we may choose to call them; they are given a variety of names, but fortunately their principal purposes are much the same—are important in building up the community legal service. Without these express words, the commission may have a power but not a duty to co-operate. Therefore, the words that the amendment seeks to delete are important to the success of the community legal service. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not feel moved to accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: I should like to follow what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said. We

533
have not been informed as to the community basis on which Clause 5 and the following clauses are to be administered. What are to be the areas concerned? Is it to be done on the basis of what at the Bar we call the "circuits"? Is it to be done on the basis of the regions of England and Wales? Is it to be done on some local authority basis, as was suggested by my noble and learned friend? We should be able to understand this so that we can know what the Government's intentions really are. I hope that between now and Report the Government will amplify Clause 5 so as to make clear the local basis on which the community services are to be administered.
Baroness Goudie: I support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said. I agree wholeheartedly with him that, if the local authorities and other bodies do not work closely with the regional committees, the law centres will not have a chance to survive. At the moment, as I said earlier, they do not survive very well. We need them to flourish. If we do not have careful planning with local authorities, the system will not work. It is important that this clause should remain in the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has the advantage of having two bites at the cherry. Amendments Nos. 43 and 48 were grouped and I have already spoken to both.
It appears that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has met the noble and learned Lord's point. It is not a question of whether Clause 5(4) is unnecessary because it confers powers which inhere in the commission in any event. It imposes a duty upon the commission and the commission would not be under such a duty unless it were imposed by statute. That appears to me to be a complete answer to the noble and learned Lord's point.
I have already undertaken to write to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The position is that the Legal Aid Board is currently in discussions with the local authorities to develop plans for each of their areas. What is particularly in view is a local authority-based community legal service. I shall amplify this point in the letter which I have promised the noble Lord.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Of course, this clause imports a duty. I read the very words imposing the duty: "The Commission shall also". I agree with those who referred to the importance of acting in concert, where appropriate, with a local authority and other local voluntary bodies. But, with respect, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and his supporters are proving too much. If they are right, the commission shall perform the functions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b),
"in co-operation with such authorities and other bodies and persons as it considers appropriate".
But let us suppose that it considers that it can perfectly well act without needing anyone's co-operation. Is it acting improperly? With great respect to my noble and learned friend and the noble Baroness, it seems to me that those words do not advance the purpose of the Bill.
534
If we can get rid of even a word or two which are unnecessary, it is our duty to do so. However, in pursuance of my previous undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 51 and 52:
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("demand") and insert ("need").
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("demand") and insert ("need").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments previously. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert (", and
(c) where appropriate, co-operate with such other authorities, bodies and persons in providing services of the descriptions specified in subsection (1).")
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendments which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer moved a little earlier have reduced the passion with which I might have been minded to introduce this debate, but I hope that my noble and learned friends will forgive me if I take a moment to request information, advice and assistance.
Concern was expressed at an earlier stage about the proposed system of exclusive contracting being likely to lead to a substantial diminution in the number of firms of solicitors supplying legal services. That was referred to by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on Second Reading. I understand the need to maintain standards. Some firms which will no longer be supplying services will, frankly, not be missed.
However, that may mean that in some areas there will be no ready access to some kinds of expertise. An obvious example is immigration law. The number of firms with a franchise is now not large; there may be only a limited number left with a contract for providing that service. The Legal Aid Board has already indicated that, leaving the present Bill aside, it will need to adopt a more proactive approach to ensure that access to that expertise is available in certain areas where there is a demonstrable need for it. It seems to be envisaged that medical negligence work will be confined to about 170 firms.
Provision of the kind which the Committee was discussing a few moments ago exists. The practising profession, law centres, citizens advice bureaux and financial advice centres, will all have a part to play; but there will also be a need to see where gaps remain and to address that problem.
As I understand it, one purpose of establishing the commission is that it will actively determine where the need lies and try to ensure that it is met. That was established, if it needed establishing, in the previous debate. Clearly, there is a duty on the commission to do that. I wondered what would be the mechanics of its

535
doing it. What will be its sources of information about the needs in a particular area? Will it consult? Will it write circulars to various local authorities and bodies? Will it rely upon people writing letters to it? It would be helpful if my noble and learned friend could elaborate on how he envisages that happening. It is fine to impose a duty on someone, but one must have an idea of how it will be addressed.
The purpose of Amendment No. 53 is two-fold: first, to state on the face of the Bill an intention that that will happen; and, secondly, to invite my noble and learned friends, or one of them, to tell the Committee in a little more detail how it is envisaged that the commission will find out the existing need, co-ordinate the existing provision and make the necessary arrangements where it does not so exist. I should have said at the outset that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to consider with this amendment Amendment No. 62.
One of the messages that I believe the Bill seeks to address is the mosaic of bodies which afford legal services and assistance to the public and the patchwork quilt of sources from which they are funded. Some years ago a count was made and it was found that there were nine different government departments which funded one service or another. In circumstances where sometimes one source deals with a specific range of problems and one agency may have to refer a client to another agency because different advice is required, how that co-ordination takes place requires consideration. We all know that human situations do not always come neatly packaged and labelled with the appropriate advice and relief that is required.
I turn to the geographical area that the Committee discussed in the previous debate. It is clear from Clause 7(4) that it is intended that the commission should distinguish not only between different descriptions of cases but different areas. I hope that my noble and learned friends can tell the Committee something about the relationship between the practising profession, the commission and local authorities. For example, law centres are frequently funded by local authorities. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, indicated, it would be a tragedy if local authorities said that they no longer needed to fund law centres because the legal services commission would provide all the necessary advice. But if the commission decided that its first concern was to make provision in areas where the local authority had not done so, the more conscientious local authorities would be penalised. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to impose a duty not only on the commission but on local authorities to participate in this exercise.
As I understand it, at present there are some 700 citizens advice bureaux with a further 1,700 to 1,800 outlets. There are some 800 independent advice centres and 53 law centres. Together they receive over £150 million in funding by local authorities. In their White Paper the Government said that spending from the various sources would be considered as a whole. I hope that it will. But I am not wholly clear what that means and what is meant by taking the various sources of funding into consideration.
In moving this amendment I seek to afford my noble and learned friends the opportunity to tell the Committee how they see the commission co-ordinating the various sources of funding, how it will be done both nationally and locally and what role it is envisaged local authorities will play. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I listened with great interest to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Without doubt he touched on one of the central issues of the Bill: the precise effect of exclusive contracts via the tendering process. My Amendment No. 77 seeks to address this matter head on. I believe that the amendment that the Committee is now considering is an indirect way of dealing with the central issue. Therefore, I defer my comments on the issue of exclusive contracting and tendering until the Committee comes to Amendments Nos. 67 and in particular Amendment No. 77. In general, I very strongly support the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I deal with Amendments Nos. 53 and 62 together. I echo the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, about the most effective way of dealing with the various issues that have been raised. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell has addressed the issue of whether or not we are restricting access to justice by limiting the number of solicitors who may be available. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is right. His amendment, Amendment No. 77, goes to the very heart of that issue. Without any disrespect to my noble and learned friend, perhaps I may defer my response to that very important issue until we come to that amendment because I believe that it arises more clearly in the context of that amendment. I suspect that other members of the Committee will also wish to address the same point. Therefore, it is perhaps better to deal with it at that stage.
My noble and learned friend raised a number of other important issues in relation to the two amendments. As to Amendment No. 53, he asked how the body would assess the need as required by the Bill. The regional legal services committees and the Legal Aid Board have already done a lot of valuable work on modelling needs. In their consultations in the regions they have extended and modified the modelling that they have done. The work that is now being undertaken jointly with local authorities, particularly in pioneer areas, will enable further extension and refinement of the work. As one would expect, they also have good contact not just with the local authorities but with advice centres, providers of legal services, law firms and all the other agencies that will deal with people who do or may need legal services. We cannot be too prescriptive in relation to that issue. It is really for the bodies themselves to work out the best way to consult and discover the information that they want.
Separately from that in relation to the first amendment, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer raised the question of immigration advice and said that

537
there were few franchises in that respect. I am aware that many providers of immigration advice are unfranchised. It is the intention of the Legal Aid Board to offer short-term contracts to help firms get up to a standard where they can get a franchise to deal with immigration problems. I should like to think that we are aware of that problem and seek to deal with it as urgently as possible. We also envisage contracts for second-tier advisers who can support front line advisers who lack expertise. There is also power in Clause 7 to establish new bodies who can employ people directly.
I turn to Amendment No. 62. At the heart of this proposal, which I take to be a probing amendment, is the question: what are we doing to ensure that there is proper co-ordination between the providers of legal services, the legal services commission, the Lord Chancellor and the local authorities? While I cannot support the amendment, officials of the Lord Chancellor and the Legal Aid Board have been working closely with individual local authorities to develop the concept of the community legal service partnership. The intention is that this will provide a forum in which the local authority, the legal services commission and if possible other significant funders and providers will come together to co-ordinate funding and planning of local legal and advice services to ensure that the delivery of services better matches the needs of local communities.
Local authorities have shown great enthusiasm and willingness to be involved in this initiative. The idea of community legal service partnerships will be developed in pioneer local authority areas. The five local authorities that have agreed to be pioneer areas are: Liverpool, Norwich, Nottinghamshire, Kirklees and Southwark. They will develop best practice models by testing methods of needs assessment, categorisation of services and encouraging the development of referral networks within local services.
The pioneer areas will be subject to an evaluation and monitoring exercise by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The aim is that it should be completed by the end of this year. We are also looking to have a larger number of other local authorities as associate pioneer areas. This means that the local authorities will be actively assisting in the development of community legal service partnerships, but they will not be subject to the same degree of monitoring.
Our mission is to build partnership. At this stage I believe that an inclusive and co-operative approach to local authorities is more effective than any attempts at coercion. That is already demonstrated by the results we have achieved. The work of the pioneer and associate pioneer areas and the move to best value by local authorities should provide more than sufficient incentive for local authorities to work co-operatively with the legal services commission and others. In the real world, I believe this is the best that can be achieved currently. I hope that that I have gone some way to answering the
538
questions raised by the noble and learned Lord in his helpful amendment. However, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: First, I apologise for partially pre-empting the later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. If we had seen the amendment at an earlier stage, we might have been able to make representations about the grouping. But that is one of the vicissitudes of debate in this Chamber.
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for the information he has given. I should like to read it at leisure—if we ever have any leisure during the course of the Bill—and to reflect on it. I am content to leave the matter there. Perhaps I may say a few words on what he said about the duty on local authorities. I believe there is a genuine problem. Those local authorities which are the most conscientious could be the most heavily penalised while the free riders get away. However, I note what my noble and learned friend said. He is obviously optimistic about the future for encouragement and co-operation. I should be running contrary to my normal nature if I were to argue with that. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I suggest that the Committee stage resumes at 8.45 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 to 8.45 p.m.]
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
INDEPENDENCE OF SOLICITORS AND BARRISTERS
(" . Nothing in this Act shall prevent there continuing to exist an independent solicitors' profession and an independent Bar.").
The noble Lord said: In view of what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his response to Amendment No. 1, I shall not move Amendment No. 56.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("necessary").
The noble Lord said: I understand that the Government will make available a fixed amount of resources each year and that it is the duty of the commission to allocate those resources. The number and type of people and cases to receive assistance each year will depend on the resources allocated and the demand. The first question which arises is: is there any danger of the money available running out and, if so, what happens then?
There is nothing in the Bill—I should not have expected there to be—to indicate how much the Government intend to make available for legal aid. However, they have said that it is not their intention to

539
reduce current spending overall. There is nothing in the Bill which would commit this or any future Government to continue spending at or about current levels.
The amendment, which is only a probing amendment, will ensure that the "necessary" rather than the "appropriate" level of resources are committed by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 58, which stands in my name, is grouped with Amendment No. 57. Their purposes are the same. The effect of the Bill is that civic legal aid will be cash limited. Clause 6 provides that:
"The Lord Chancellor … shall pay to the Commission the sums which he determines are appropriate for the funding of services by the Commission".
We all recognise that the person who determines what is appropriate is not the Lord Chancellor, but the other Chancellor: the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe that there must be some criteria for deciding what is appropriate. It is not appropriate for the Lord Chancellor, or still less for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to decide simply out of the blue what is the appropriate sum to provide for services funded by the community legal service.
Under Clause 5(4), the legal services commission is rightly given the duty to inform itself of the need for services. That is relevant to the commission's duty to prepare its own plans for services, but it is also highly relevant in deciding what is the appropriate total sum for the funding of the service. Whichever Chancellor it is who takes that decision, it should be taken, surely, in the light of the information provided by the commission under Clause 5(4). That is the purpose of the amendment. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to give some indication of what factors will be taken into account in deciding what is the appropriate sum.
The Lord Chancellor: There is an important difference between Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. I deal first with Amendment No. 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. They have proposed an amendment which would require the Lord Chancellor to pay the sums to the legal services commission which he determines are necessary, rather than appropriate, for funding the community legal service.
By comparison, in Amendment No. 58, the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, wish to amend Clause 6(2)(a) and Clause 7(1) to impose a duty on the Lord Chancellor and the commission to have regard to the information on the need for services which has been collected by the commission under Clause 5(4). In the case of the Lord Chancellor, it will be when he is determining the appropriate sums for the funding of services by the commission. In the commission's case, it will be when settling its priorities for the funding of services.
I am willing to consider further the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips, and to come back to the House on Report. The Lord Chancellor and the commission would inevitably consider need and the setting of priorities in allocating
540
money to the community legal service. But I agree that amendments along these lines may provide an important commitment on the face of the Bill that the need for services which has been identified by the commission will be taken into account.
On the other hand, with respect to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I could not accept the form of words which they propose in Amendment No. 57. It bears the meaning that I should make available the sums which I determine are necessary to meet all the needs that have been identified. That would not be to live in the real world. Would that I could guarantee to meet every need; but I cannot. Whatever form of words may emerge, they cannot restrict the essential discretion which must be had if we are to meet priority needs under the disciplines of a controlled budget as distinct from an open-ended one.
On the basis of those indications about the course which I propose to follow on Report, I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: As a denizen of the unreal world, I have listened to what my noble and learned friend has said and I should like to reflect on it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 58:
Page 4, line 12, after ("appropriate") insert (", having regard to the information gathered under section 5(4),").
The noble Lord said: I shall not go quite as far as did the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, earlier today by saying, "Gosh, thanks". I certainly welcome the words of the Lord Chancellor about this and I look forward to seeing what form of words he produces. Therefore, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 65 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—("( ) Where, in an individual case funded as part of the Community Legal Service, particular services are provided by a person offering specialist advice and assistance on a referral basis or specialist advocacy, regulations shall require that person's remuneration to be quantified and paid separately from other items in the case.").
The noble Lord said: This is one of a number of amendments which refers to the question of referral and specialist advocacy. There are two situations which I wish to draw to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.
The first concerns the responsibility of the commission when looking at categories of cases rather than individual cases. In this case, Amendment No. 93 urges the commission, in the interests of justice, to set out those services which it believes should be provided by way of specialist advice or assistance offered on a referral basis or requiring specialist advocacy. In circumstances where the commission concludes that such cases merit such treatment, the amendment goes on to require that appropriate funding arrangements are made.
This amendment seeks to meet the concern that standards of special advice and advocacy may be excessively market-driven by the existing clauses in the Bill. In the medical profession, there is a clear distinction between a general practitioner and the specialist consultant. A consultant can become a consultant only after several years of training and he alone can provide specialist advice. In my submission, that approach is also appropriate to legal advice; and in circumstances where that approach is not taken, an individual who is in receipt of legal services funded under this Bill is likely to be adversely prejudiced. That is the basis of Amendment No. 93 and the other similar amendments.
By contrast, Amendment No. 66 concerns the behaviour of the commission in distributing money to individual providers of legal services. Here, the object of the amendment is to ensure that advocacy fees and referral advice, when obtained as part of the funding of an individual case, should be ring-fenced and paid separately from other items in the case.
In my submission, it is significant that the word "representation" does not appear in the Bill in relation to the new scheme for civil legal aid. Representation by a specialist advocate, and the referral of the case to a specialist, are essential features of litigation, aimed at upholding a person's rights. If payment for such services is not ring-fenced, it will become lost in the general allocation of funds for the particular type of litigation or other mechanisms for resolving disputes. I emphasise that the amendment is not to protect the Bar alone. It would equally protect the remuneration of a solicitor advocate or even a welfare rights worker undertaking tribunal representation within the community legal service. Such fees are ring-fenced under the new fast-track regime for civil litigation.
The real danger is that a lump-sum payment will be available for a case, but that a specialist referral may be paid by the referrer at very low cost—which would not reflect the value for money intended by the Government. The Lord Chancellor has said on a number of occasions that, in formulating the Bill, he is not engaged in a cost-cutting exercise, but wants more control over the legal aid budget.
9 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: The principle of equality of arms, as I said earlier, requires that somebody who is publicly funded should not be put at a serious disadvantage against the other party of the case, who has access to whatever advice he is able and willing to afford. That does not mean that the level of representation provided for a party who is publicly funded should necessarily be the same as that of the other party. I have experience of cases where the Legal Aid Fund has authorised the instruction of leading counsel simply because the other party has done so. That is not in all cases necessary or appropriate. There are certainly cases in which instruction of junior counsel would be perfectly adequate.
In recent decades the whole practice of law has become increasingly specialised. One has, in a way that did not exist 30 or 40 years ago, lawyers and advice
542
agencies—paralegals as well as fully qualified lawyers—specialising in aspects of welfare law, housing law and immigration law, as well as in the more traditional subjects. In those circumstances, access to legal advice and, where necessary, advocacy on a referral basis will be necessary in many cases if the publicly funded part of the proceedings is to enjoy the level of skill, advice and assistance needed if the party in question is to fight on reasonably equal terms. Recognition of that should be clearly written into the Bill and acknowledged by those responsible for administering the community legal service. That is why I seek to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in supporting the amendments.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Again, I cannot agree with the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, because the amendments would drive a coach and horses through the whole purpose of the argument adduced by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Everybody could be regarded as a specialist in almost every case.
There are specialists in criminal law, contractual law, landlord and tenant law and so on. Where does it end? It is all part and parcel of the work of the legal profession to take on certain "specialisms". I do not believe that the case has been made that such is the right way to proceed in achieving the priorities that those who are critical of the Bill also want.
Speaking as someone who has been critical of the Bill, but constructively, I hope, I find it difficult, in a sense psychologically, to dissent from those who have supported some of my arguments and whose arguments I have supported. I hope that they will understand.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, moved Amendment No. 66 and I seek to speak to the grouping that contains that amendment together with Amendments Nos. 93, 121, 144, 161, 168, 169, 185 and 191.
Two of those amendments are typical. Amendment No. 66 would provide that,
"Where, in an individual case funded as part of the Community Legal Service, particular services are provided by a person offering specialist advice and assistance on a referral basis or specialist advocacy, regulations shall require that person's remuneration to be quantified and paid separately from other items in the case".
Amendment No. 185 would provide that,
"Where, in an individual case funded as part of the Criminal Defence Service, advice and assistance or advocacy are provided by a person offering specialist legal services on a referral basis, regulations shall require that person's remuneration to be quantified and paid separately from other items in the case".
Amendment No. 93 requires that,
"The Commission shall keep under review whether, in relation to each category of case for which it funds services as part of the Community Legal Service, the interests of justice require particular kinds of services to be provided by way of … specialist advocacy".
The broad intent of these amendments, as I understand them, is, first, to require the commission to keep under review where the interests of justice require particular kinds of advice or assistance to be provided by specialists, particularly the Bar in cases of representation, but not of

543
course excluding solicitors in their specialist roles; and, secondly, to ensure that persons being remunerated for provision of these specialist services should be paid for them discretely and basically not as a disbursement on the bill of the solicitor with whom the commission will have contracted.
I deal with the second first. Under Clause 7(3)(a) the commission has a general power to make contracts with persons or bodies for the provision of services by them. In relation to solicitors, what is contemplated is that contracting will be up and running with individual firms from around January 2000. Solicitors' firms employ many lawyers and the commission can contract with them for the provision of volume services.
Clause 7(3)(a) does enable the commission to contract with the Bar. I have long thought and said—and the Bar knows well that this is my view—that it should embrace the opportunities of contracting and be ready to contract for the provision of advocacy services, either as individual sets of chambers or through particular groupings of banisters, so that it, equally with solicitors, can offer volume services. If it were to contract in that way it would be at prices determined by the contract and the Bar would be free of the risk of payment for its services via disbursements and solicitors' bills when solicitors would be the only contracting party with the commission. The vulnerability of the Bar is obvious and that is what is in the mind of the author of this amendment. The solicitor has the contract and what the barrister gets for the provision of his specialist services out of the solicitors' contract price is what the solicitor agrees to pay him. Of course the Bar should contract direct. That is what I have been saying for ages. But the Bar has its salvation in its own hands. We are ready to contract with it. The powers are there, so let the Bar get on with it.
I can tell the Committee that discussions have taken place between my officials and the Bar on this subject. I have discussed it with the leaders of the Bar myself. I cannot understate how enthusiastic I am for the Bar to define a clear basis on which we can contract with it direct for the provision of volume advocacy services at contractually agreed prices.
I turn to the need for the commission to keep under review when the interest of justice requires the service of specialists. All these amendments, I believe, stem from an irrational fear on the part of the Bar, or perhaps more accurately, some prophets of doom in its midst, that barristers, specialist advocates, are about to become an extinct species as a result of the changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Advocacy is a specialist art and that is well recognised. I make it unequivocally plain that the word "help" in the statute means and includes "representation". Under Clause 4(2) the Lord Chancellor may give guidance to the commission about the discharge of its function and the commission is under a duty to take that guidance into account. I am ready here and now to undertake that, pursuant to that power, I will give guidance to the commission that it should keep under review, in the interests of those to
544
whom it provides, the availability of specialist advocacy where appropriate. On that, I hope, clear basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the frank way in which he responded to my amendment and—perhaps I can speak on behalf of the noble Lord—for the way in which he responded to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. However, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has completely met the point contained in the amendments. The point is that there are circumstances, when a legal problem arises, that require the advice of a specialist. These amendments seek to ensure that when funds are supplied, whether to a solicitor or a barrister, to solve a particular individual's problem, and where a specialist as well as a generalist is involved in the case, payment of both parties is made separately. Otherwise, there will be a temptation for the service provider to short-change the recipient. That will adversely affect the interests of justice.
That is the point behind the amendments. They are not concerned with the distinction between the Bar and solicitors, but the distinction between a generalist and a specialist. The amendments seek to guarantee that that distinction is marked out in the Bill in such a way that an individual whose case merits specialist advice properly receives such advice. If the noble and learned Lord has nothing further to say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 67 I must inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed I cannot call Amendments Nos. 68 and 69.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 67 seeks to exclude subsection (5) of Clause 6. Effectively, that leaves Amendment No. 77 to be considered in its place. Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 are tabled in the event that Amendment No. 67 is rejected. Those amendments seek to improve Clause 6(5) by inserting reference to "good quality services" and services "consistent with the interests of justice" alongside the sole determinant at the moment under subsection (5), which is "best possible value for money". One may think that that is a somewhat extreme phrase against matters such as the interests of justice and the like. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 68, which refers to subsection (5). The amendment takes a slightly different position from the one spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of

545
Sudbury. Here the amendment will have the effect that the subsection would read:
"In funding services as part of the Community Legal Services the Commission shall aim to obtain the best possible value for money consistent with the interests of justice and good quality services".
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lords have spoken to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68. Included in that group are Amendments Nos. 69, 187, 188, 189 and 190, to which I shall speak.
Those amendments refer to the duty of the commission to obtain the best value for money. The noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Goodhart, in the amendments standing in their names, suggest in relation to both the community legal service and the criminal defence service that the duty should be qualified by referring also to the need for consistency in the interests of justice.
If Members of the Committee had been taken through the amendments, they would have seen that the noble Lords had second thoughts about the community legal service and suggested abolishing Clause 6(5) from the area of value for money altogether. There is an amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in relation to the criminal defence service proposing that the interests of justice should be paramount.
Let me make it clear that value for money is the best combination of price and quality. The principal mechanisms for achieving this aim will be contracting for services and the development of quality accreditation schemes for service providers. I do not believe that seeking value for money conflicts with the interests of justice; indeed, on the contrary, the quality of justice can only be improved if the quality of providers improves. Further, if contracting does in due course lead to less expensive services and greater efficiency, that will release resources that can be deployed in improving access to justice.
Therefore, I believe that the duty for the commission to achieve the best value for money is a fundamental aspect of our reforms. I would not begin to accept that it should be omitted from the Bill, nor do I think that it is necessary to suggest that quality is somehow separate from value for money, as is implicit in the amendments to Clause 6 tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Phillips.
The amendment to Clause 17 would also oblige the legal services commission to provide the greatest possible choice of legal services in criminal matters. My view of the amendment to Clause 14 concerning the restriction of choice in certain circumstances is just the same as the view that I am now seeking to express to Members of the Committee on these proposals.
I do, however, understand the concerns that lie beneath the amendments. It is that, somehow, a duty to obtain value for money simply leads to cost cutting and so will reduce the quality of justice. If I may say so, that seems to me to be the point that noble Lords are seeking to make. Therefore, I am prepared to consider including a reference to the purpose of the community legal service and the criminal defence service in each of the
546
clauses on value for money. I refer respectively to Clause 6(5) and Clause 17(3). So, on the basis that I will consider the matter in that context, I invite noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Before the amendment is withdrawn, perhaps I may raise a further question. The noble and learned Lord seems to have indicated in what he has just said that there can never be an inconsistency between value for money and the interests of justice. That is not a view which I would accept. Speaking for myself—and I know that my name is attached to an amendment which says so—I would not suggest that it would be appropriate to remove references to "value for money" from the Bill.
However, it is perfectly possible that the best value for money may be obtained from someone who provides a poor service at a very low price. That may be better value for money than that obtained from someone who provides a good service at a moderately expensive price. It is a little like choosing which airline to fly with. For example, one may have the choice of a dirt-cheap flight to Tenerife with some ropey airline run by an outfit from Kazakhstan operating a few former Aeroflot planes which may, in a sense, be better value for money than one would get from British Airways. But it is surely not the Bill's intention to say that one must take a service which is very cheap and not very good in preference to a service which is good and not cheap.
The Lord Chancellor: If the service was of no value or of poor quality, it would not represent value for money. We shall lay down quality standards which will have to be adhered to. If they are not adhered to, we shall not regard ourselves as receiving value for money. I am talking about a mix of quality, value and reasonable charging.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Having heard those comments, I am content to wait to see what emerges at Report. There is no suggestion or intention to remove the concept of value for money from the Bill. Amendment No. 77 refers to obtaining the best long-term value for money on certain bases. I am ready to withdraw my amendments. As I say, I look forward to hearing what emerges at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Services which may be funded]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 4, line 27, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I wish to move Amendment No. 70 with which has been grouped Amendment No. 78. Those two amendments respectively suggest that subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 7 be left out of the Bill. I assume that the noble and learned Lord tabled these amendments purely from

547
a drafting point of view. I must say I find the drafting rather strange because we find the expression,
"as part of the Community Legal Service",
repeated in Clause 7(1), (2), (3), (4) and indeed (5). I think that the Government should invite parliamentary counsel to reconsider the drafting. It reads in a strange way. Clause 7(1) states:
"The Commission shall set priorities in its funding of services as part of the Community Legal Service".
Why should that be done as part of the community legal service? It is as though the whole of the funding of the community legal service will not be covered by that and by the setting of those priorities. I really think that is a strange way to draft subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 7. On that point, the entire drafting of Clause 7 needs to be reconsidered.
I should just mention in passing that the noble and learned Lord tabled Amendment No. 82—it is not grouped with the amendments I am discussing—to leave out Clause 7(4), on which the same point arises. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 71 to 76 inclusive.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I rise with some diffidence to deal with the drafting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As I understand the way Clause 7(1) works, it places a duty on the commission to set priorities in its funding of services as part of the community legal service and it requires the commission to set those priorities in accordance with any directions given by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (4).
There is therefore a duty on the commission to set priorities in the way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, identified. It must also set those priorities in accordance with any directions given by the Lord Chancellor. That is perfectly comprehensible and it seems to me to be a sensible way of going about things.
Clause 7(2) states that the commission may fund as part of the community legal service those things which it "considers appropriate", subject to the priorities it has set under Clause 7(1); those priorities having been set in accordance with any directions given by the Lord Chancellor. It seems to be a perfectly comprehensible network of duties. The subsection is saying in effect "You, the commission, have to set your priorities. You have to set them in accordance with any directions given to you by the Lord Chancellor. You then have to spend your money subject to those priorities as you think appropriate". The effect of that is that it provides a discipline and a structure within which the commission can determine its spending priorities. That seems quite sensible.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Why do you need the words "as part
of"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: "Fund" as part of the community legal service is a term of art. The community
548
legal service consists of, first, funding and, secondly, planning with others. That is the only way to refer to legally aided services.
Lord Renton: Although I have always had an immense respect for the noble and learned Lord, I am sorry to have to say that ever since he became a member of the Government in your Lordships' House I am not in the least bit convinced by the argument he has put forward. I hope that he and the Lord Chancellor will agree that if laymen—and this is the important thing that we have to bear in mind—are to understand this clause, it really must be re-drafted. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I do so in the hope that the noble and learned Lords will think about this much more deeply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 4, line 27, after ("shall") insert ("have particular regard to the priorities set out in subsections (1A) and (1B).
(1A) Subject to subsection (5), the Commission shall afford priority to advice and representation in cases concerning—

(a) entitlement to welfare benefits;

(b) any dispute arising out of or in connection with a contract of employment;

(c) homelessness, access to housing, possession proceedings, housing disregard, harassment or unlawful eviction;

(d) the enforcement of judgment debts;

(e) immigration, asylum or nationality; or

(f) such other matters as are specified in regulations.

(1B) Subject to subsection (5), the Commission shall afford priority for advice, assistance and representation in cases—

(a) likely to give rise to substantial benefits for a significant number of people other than the parties;

(b) which raise an important issue of law or point of principle;

(c) concerned with protection from violence;

(d) relating to the welfare of children;

(e) concerning the welfare of a person under a disability;

(f) relating to the care of a child; or

(g) concerning the provision of a child's education, including admission and exclusion proceedings.

(1C) Subject to subsections (1) and (1A), the Commission shall").
The noble and learned Lord said: Part of the underlying philosophy of legal services in the Bill is to replace objective entitlements by category with a limited fund distributed in a much more discretionary way and decided according to priorities. There are dangers inherent in that approach. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor clearly recognises them because in his speech to the Bar conference on the 26th September 1996 he said this:
"Cost capping, however, is unattractive in principle. because legal aid would cease to be a benefit to which a qualifying individual is entitled. It would become a discretionary benefit, available at bureaucratic disposable, a benefit that would have to be disallowed when the money ran out, or when another category of case was given preference. Legal aid would cease to be a service available on an equal basis nationally, because cases would go forward in one region where identical cases in others, of equal merit, would not".
Notwithstanding those considerations, I appreciate why my noble and learned friend is proposing to move to the new system. But that entails empowering the

549
commission to set priorities, as we learnt in the previous debate. My noble and learned friend has recognised the importance of those priorities because he has sought to retain a power to give directions about them to the commission. But, first, there is no indication in the Bill as to what those priorities should be; and, secondly, there is no recognition that some needs may be sacrosanct and therefore guaranteed.
I have sought in this amendment to set out two lists of priorities. Subsection (1)(a) lists according to the subject matter of the dispute; subsection (1)(b) lists according to the other criteria by which we might judge the importance of according assistance. I say at once that I would not go to the stake for my list as against any other possible list. It is not my intention to provoke a debate as to what the priorities should be. What I hope to learn from my noble and learned friend is whether there will be some matters which will be guaranteed even if the fund runs out, similar to the duties imposed on the criminal defence service in Clauses 13 and 14.
Perhaps I may return to a matter on which we touched in an earlier debate. In Clause 7(4), the commission is empowered to distinguish not only between different descriptions of cases but between different geographical areas. That is obviously a wise provision and it must be envisaged that the commission will examine localities to judge their needs. In fact, we heard a little from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer about how the Government are proposing to approach that matter, although I must confess that I do not yet have it crystal clear in my mind. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can tell us more about how those needs, when they are identified, will relate to the national system of priorities. Who will decide the priorities for a particular region and within what parameters? Will they be subject to the national priorities or may they, in certain cases, take precedence over them?
I need hardly explain that this is a probing amendment and arises simply from my innate curiosity. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I was hoping to intervene before the noble and learned Lord sat down because I wished to ask whether his amendment had the effect, not of removing capping but of simply removing capping to another place. If his amendment were carried, would it not mean that those categories of case would receive certainty of funding and that that would mean potentially a great deal less funding for the areas that are not enumerated here?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. What he says is absolutely right. We cannot have it both ways. If one says that there are certain situations which ought to be guaranteed funding, that means that certain other very worthy situations might be short on funding. I am putting the amendment forward for discussion. I can see the difficulties. I still think there may be a case for saying that some things should be sacrosanct.
Baroness Goudie: I feel that it would be wrong to restrict ourselves in this way. I would rather have the
550
funding and not restrict ourselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, there are a number of other issues to which perhaps we would like to give priority, so I think it would be wrong to go down this road. I understand why the noble and learned Lord is doing it but I think it is totally the wrong way to do it. I think it should be left to the local committees.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In the spirit of discussion to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred, I wonder whether I might inquire of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what exactly is intended by Clause 7(1). Is it that the priorities that the commission shall set will always be set in accordance with any directions given by the Lord Chancellor? Or is it intended that the commission will have a wide discretion of its own and that the Lord Chancellor will give directions only in limited areas? We ought to know precisely what the clause is intended to convey.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall confine myself to the amendment before the Committee, which is Amendment No. 71. We can have a useful debate on other matters when we come to Amendment No. 72, which is in the next grouping. In the interests of order, I shall confine myself to Amendment No. 71.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment would have the effect of setting out on the face of the Bill a set of priorities for funding cases. The commission would then have a duty to have particular regard to those.
I am unwilling to accept this amendment, not because I fundamentally disagree with the list of priorities in itself—in fact, many represent the kind of priorities I have already outlined in the White Paper, Modernising Justice, and elsewhere. I do not accept the amendment because I do not believe it is appropriate for general priorities, which will influence the overall deployment of resources, to be set in legislation.
I am already accountable to Parliament for the use of resources voted by my department. Legislation determining my priorities would be an unnecessary and unusual burden and would lead to inflexibility, in that the precise meaning of each priority and its relative importance could be open to challenge.
As I said earlier, I am perfectly willing to consider subjecting to parliamentary approval the funding code and future changes to the funding criteria in the code. We shall then have every opportunity to scrutinise the priorities set out in the code when Parliament is invited to approve it. On that basis, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I was not taken by surprise when my noble and learned friend said that he could not accept the amendment. I should have been somewhat surprised had he said that he could. It was a probing amendment. I can see the arguments on both sides about the approach. When I tabled the amendment I was not aware of the generous offer that my noble and learned friend would make to subject the code to parliamentary approval. We have made a great deal of progress during the course of the evening. If we are wise, perhaps we should all quit while we are ahead.

551
For the moment, I am content to reflect on the situation that we have now reached and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 4, line 27, after ("set") insert (", and may from time to time vary,").
The noble Lord said: If it is the case, as I believe it may be, that the priorities set under Clause 7 by the commission will be set out in a document approved by Parliament, either under Clause 7 or as part of the funding code under Clause 9, I shall be happy to take the matter no further. I should, however, be anxious if the priorities could be established without any form of parliamentary control through approval by statutory instrument. I believe that that is not the intention. If there is to be a statutory instrument, I need take the matter no further.
The Lord Chancellor: I am indicating to the noble Lord that I am minded to subject to parliamentary approval the funding code and future changes to the funding criteria in the code.
Lord Goodhart: That does not entirely cover my point. The commission is required to set priorities in accordance with any directions to be given by the Lord Chancellor. Those priorities might or might not form part of the code. I do not think it is possible to take this matter any further now. However, if the amendments do not make it adequately clear that the code will cover priorities, I shall almost certainly wish to revisit this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 73 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 74 and 75.
[Amendments Nos.73 to 76 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) In funding services as part of the Community Legal Service, the Commission shall aim to obtain the best long term value for money on the basis that all persons and bodies applying for funding who meet the standards set by the Commission shall be able to provide services for individuals under this Part of this Act on terms as to remuneration and otherwise, set by the Commission after consultation with the applicants, which are broadly fair.").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken at length on two occasions in this House concerning the purport of Amendment No. 77, first, in the debate on the Queen's Speech and, secondly, on Second Reading. I hope Members will be patient if I spend some time trying to sketch the backdrop to the pressing need for the amendment, as we on these Benches see it.
I am in something of a lonely position in that I believe that I am the only practising solicitor in the Chamber tonight.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I did not realise that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was still in the saddle; I am delighted to know that he is. I beg his pardon. In the House generally the presence of practising solicitors, particularly ones with legal aid franchises, is not common. I feel a heavy load on my shoulders as a voice for the practising solicitor, in particular the high-street practitioner, in an age in which they get short shrift in terms of public opinion and public esteem, it being the corporate and specialist lawyers who are the cynosure of young law graduates.
None the less the high-street practitioners comprise much the greater part of the practising profession. In dealing with this debate, and in particular this amendment, which goes to the question of how exclusive contracts are awarded, I endeavoured to consult two groups of practising solicitors to find out what they thought of the Government's proposals, particularly vis-à-vis competitive tendering for exclusive contracts. I had the co-operation, which I greatly valued, of the Suffolk and North Essex Law Society, which is a typical county law society, and of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, comprising 500 front-line legal aid practice firms. I shall refer to some of the findings of the questionnaire which those bodies put to their members. It was needed because there seems to have been an extraordinary dearth of consultation with practising lawyers in the course of putting together these far-reaching proposals.
At the back of the last of the guidance findings produced by the Legal Aid Board last October, the document entitled Exclusive Contracting, (upon which many, if not most, of the propositions in the Bill are based) there is a list of those who were consulted, which comprises rather fewer than 30 firms of solicitors. The Committee may think, as I do, that in a profession of 78,000 members that is grossly inadequate. I believe that the lack of consultation shows in this proposal more than in any other.
In saying all this, I wish to make clear to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I am not here in any sense as an advocate for practising solicitors, to excuse their shortcomings or to plead especially for their predicament. I fully accept that in this Bill we are not considering the benefit of solicitors as such. However, I put it to the Committee that to disregard the needs of the practising profession would undermine the very purposes to which we are all wedded; namely, to increase quality access by ordinary people to good legal services.
If the practising profession is unhappy, if its morale is low, if it does not feel a spirit of co-operation with the proposals that we in this Parliament may thrust upon them, it will be ill for the outcome. We must not pretend that we can do away with practising solicitors in large numbers. From some of the comments made in this Chamber and beyond sometimes I gain the impression

553
that there is a suggestion that the voluntary sector (if I may so describe it) can somehow take on large swathes of work currently carried out by high street solicitors. That is not so. I believe that at the moment there are only 53 law centres—rather less than the number 10 or 20 years ago—and 700-plus CABs. God bless them. For many years I have had the privilege of acting for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. No one need tell me what a wonderful job those bureaux do. Equally no one should try to tell me that they can do the job of high street practising solicitors. They cannot, and they do not want to.
I sometimes get the feeling that the Legal Aid Board believes that with all of these volunteers and charities, tax and rates exemptions and all the rest of it, it will be able to foist services which are currently undertaken by solicitors onto those organisations. If anybody thinks that, they should think again. Most of them would say that they depend upon vibrant and effective local practising solicitors to do the dirty work and handle the cases that they cannot cope with and the conflicts with which they are unable to contend. There are also over 1,000 advice centres but most of them are part-time and manned by volunteers. Nothing has been said in any of the documentation about indemnity or insurance cover for the voluntary sector if and when it takes over much larger swathes of legal aid work.
The question of cost control, which rightly concerns the Lord Chancellor and the Government, can be exaggerated. The brute figures that we have been given in debates thus far disguise the fact that over the past two years the budget has come under control. The out-turn shows that the expenditure is within budget against an increase in the number of cases handled. It is not true to suggest that the budget is beyond control and soaring out of sight.
One of the interesting results of the questionnaire circulated to practising solicitors in Suffolk and North Essex is the reasons they give for the increase in legal aid costs in recent times. They refer to the following: the increasing complexity of cases; the increasing complexity of law; the impact of the Children's Act, which is a vast new legal aid burden with an immense cost consequence; increasing client expectations; concern about negligence claims and threats from clients; increased specialisation among the firms which do legal aid work, which ironically leads not only to higher quality but higher cost; and increased overheads consequent upon the bureaucratisation and demands of the Legal Aid Board itself. While one does not blame the Legal Aid Board, no one should pretend that the vast paper chase that legal aid franchising involves comes at no cost.
Another reason is low levels of legal aid remuneration. One should make no bones about it. It leads to many solicitors having to delegate legal aid work as far down the pyramid within their offices as they can in order to do the work at any kind of profit. Ironically, that leads to higher legal aid costs because invariably the work is done less quickly and the costs increase. Another reason is the increased cost of disbursements, particularly expert witness fees, which have reached a stratospheric level. A further reason is
554
the increased cost of interlocutory proceedings and all the rest of it. I mention those matters because unless the Committee understands that we are not dealing here with a runaway train it may arrive at the wrong conclusion. I am desperately concerned that it should not do so.
I mention en route that the Lord Chancellor has made reference several times both here and abroad to fat cats. I wish that he would stop it. It gives a misleading impression to the great British public. Barristers earning £1 million a year from legal aid work are exceptional. Far from earning £1 million a year, many solicitors who have undertaken legal aid are shutting up shop and going over entirely to private work. A respondent to the Suffolk questionnaire, a three-partner firm in Clacton doing a lot of legal aid work, says that it has had enough; it is putting up the shutters on legal aid and getting on with work for private clients. Getting on with work for private clients means earning on average 100 per cent. more per hour worked. Again, I have collected the data from the respondents from Suffolk and north Essex. We need to bear that figure in mind. Unless we do so, we shall come to the wrong conclusion.
The Government's scheme is based upon upholding or enabling a capped budget. I think I am right in saying that it is the first time the legal aid scheme has been operated on this basis. Towards the end of the year people will not be able to have legal aid services because there will be no money available regardless of how important the case is to the poor person involved. That can only be achieved by extraordinary controls. It is dirigisme par excellence. It is a little worrying.
We are all grateful for the important accommodation by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the start of the debate. Nonetheless, the means by which the capped budget will be achieved involves total control of the legal aid spend, the regional legal aid spend, the categories of cases which may be within legal aid, the merits test—we have had a recent update on that—the means test and, lastly, contracting by means of competitive exclusive tendering.
I presume the proposition is this. As with any business—such as groceries or the manufacture of shoes—there are two aspects. First, one creates a demand—a plum. The plum in this case is many more legal aid cases for the lucky winners. In the tendering process, plainly one wins and the remainder lose. It is a kind of conditional fee arrangement for solicitors. The one who wins will have to handle perhaps twice or three times as many cases as last year. For those who lose, it is goodbye—there is no more legal aid for them. It is assumed, according to normal business practice, that the profession will be flocking to put in low bids for that increased legal aid work. I have news for the Legal Aid Board. It may have had only 29 responses to its national, extremely glossy, consultation attempt. The Legal Aid Practitioners Group has circularised its 500 member firms and 169 had replied by lunchtime today. The replies make interesting reading, especially when one realises that these are the shock troops of legal aid. They say clearly by three to two that they do not welcome an increase in legal aid work. Why do they not welcome

555
it? It is because they are doing as much as they can to make a living. If they do more, ironically they earn less because the time spent on legal aid work will not be spent on private client work. As I indicated, if one earns twice as much for private client work, why does one wish to do more legal aid?
It is true that a few firms will be dying to put in low bids to win the tender in their town, district or city. They are few and far between. They may not be the firms that one wants if one is looking for quality to win the tender. It is also predictable—indeed, it is a result shown by the Legal Aid Practitioners Group survey—that the few firms which welcome this new state of affairs are already big in legal aid.
I put one other truism to the Committee. Survival in the field of private client work is at least as competitive—I would say much more competitive—than survival in the field of legal aid work. Therefore, it follows as night follows day that the many firms which undertake a modicum of legal aid work, which might amount to 5, 10 or 15 per cent. of their turnover, will be able to bring to that work, if they are allowed to continue with it, the expertise and skills which they will have to hone in the competitive market of their private client work.
One of the bizarre outcomes of the road we are being led down by the Government is that competitive exclusive contracting means that, first, all the losers cannot undertake legal aid work and, secondly, all the firms which do not wish to undertake more legal aid work and will therefore not tender will be lost to the legal aid system. That is wholly inconsistent with, and counterproductive to, the very aim and purpose of the Access to Justice Bill. People will not get access to justice but exit from justice because good solicitors willing to undertake legal aid work and doing it well—I emphasise that one is not looking for anyone to undertake legal aid work who does not have the requisite quality standards—and who are lost to the legal aid system will be lost to justice itself.
If exclusive competitive tendering goes ahead the effect will be that many firms will no longer be able to undertake legal aid work. Although the Legal Aid Board has had to adjust its estimates, I understand that as many as 6,000 firms will be lost to the legal aid system. Instead of the current 10,500 to 11,000 offices which undertake legal aid work to some degree, there may be only 6,000.
I had some correspondence with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on that very issue and he kindly replied to me at length just before Christmas. Taking the point I have just made, he stated his belief that any reduction of access is more than offset by the fact that all providers will in future meet assured quality standards. No one is asking for a continuance of legal aid work by firms which do not meet the required quality standards. It is not an alternative—access or quality. We want access and quality; but we do not want firms which have the necessary quality standards to be excluded from undertaking the legal aid work they are willing to do.
556
In a cynical age, I must tell your Lordships that, thank God, many solicitors undertake legal aid work because they believe that it is their duty to do so. They believe that it is their public duty to do their fair share of legal aid work even though they earn a great deal less money than they earn from their private client work. They want to undertake legal aid work because they believe that it is part of justice. I know many solicitors who will weep strange tears come the day they are forced to get richer because they cannot do that which they would for justice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, asked why I should worry about the number of outlets because there are, for example, only 881 Jobcentres in England and Wales and only 546 benefit offices. I do not see the relevance of giving us those numbers. On the whole, people looking for jobs are fit and capable of getting on buses or walking or driving to the nearest Jobcentre. However, one of the problems of access points in terms of legal aid services is that the whole community needs ready access to solicitors; the old, the lame, single mothers and the disabled need geographical and psychological access.
Those who have laboured as long in the field as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I know that there is a huge psychological barrier between the poor and poorer people in our community and the legal services which they often want and do not get. To look at the matter simply on the basis of the number of Jobcentres will not do. There are invariably two sides to a conflict and both parties need ready and easy access to legal services.
The noble and learned Lord went on to say:
"Finally, as you acknowledge, many firms currently do very little legal aid work. Some of these will nevertheless win contracts".
As I believe I have indicated, the research that I have carried out, which can be made available after the debate, demonstrates that many of those firms will not apply. Several of the firms in the Suffolk and North-Essex Law Society which responded to the questionnaire—and that was 22 firms—indicated that not only would they not apply but if they did, given exclusive competitive tendering, they had no chance of winning because they did not wish to increase their throughput.
The effect on "access", which is after all in the title of the Bill, will be parlous. Under no circumstances should we allow this to come to pass.
Once a firm has opted out of legal aid, I do not believe that it will ever come back to it. That will be the case particularly in relation to those firms which tender for the exclusive contracts and lose. Legal aid requires a particular way of looking at work. It requires people with particular skills, although I would not exaggerate that. The Government must accept that those firms which are excluded from legal aid at the first round of tendering will never come back into it.
That has a fairly devastating consequence on the second round of tendering, because which firms then will tender? If there are one or two firms in a medium-sized town, at the second round who will be

557
there to achieve the lower price at the tender which is hoped for, I put it no higher, by the Legal Aid Board? That is a disadvantage which must be faced and faced squarely.
Then there is the question of quality. Most solicitors view legal aid rates as unfair or very unfair. That was the opinion of 80 per cent. of the Suffolk and North-Essex practitioners who responded. If they will receive, for legal aid work, half as much remuneration as for private client work, how do the Government and the Legal Aid Board really think that it will be possible to maintain quality, let alone improve it, on the exclusive contractual basis? It simply does not add up. Cutting fees to win the tender will mean, in the medium and long term, cutting corners to do the work.
I am afraid to say that solicitors are able to fit the work to the price like anyone else. It will not be within the capacity of the Legal Aid Board to effect a satisfactory check on the real quality of work carried out. Another finding which may surprise the Committee is the low esteem in which the quality checks of the Legal Aid Board are held by the profession. Something like 80 per cent. do not consider that the quality checks exercised by the Legal Aid Board are in any way effective except as a check on management's handling of the work: for example, where bits of paper are; whether the right forms and attendance notes have been filled in; whether the diary has the right dates in and so on. I do not believe that the inexorability of low fees—
Lord Carter: I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of the passage in the Companion which says that other speakers are expected to keep within 15 minutes, and I see that the noble Lord has been speaking for 24 minutes.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I confess that I am relatively new to the House and was not aware of that rule. I apologise for my excess. I should like two minutes to finish, given that I am on a lone horse.
I do not believe that the central components of the thesis are valid. I do not believe that tender prices will be significantly lower than current rates. I do not believe that quality will be maintained, let alone raised, by the tendering process. I do not believe that access will not be damaged or blitzed. I believe that the Government must abandon competitive tendering. They must find a better way of dealing with legal aid and remuneration. That is in the hands of the Legal Aid Board, if it were only humble enough to grasp it.
There is already a fast and rapid increase in franchising. Something like double the number of firms have put in for it in the last month. With better checks, we can maintain the patchwork of legal services better and utilise the community services that the Government intend to introduce and which we all support. With further consultation and co-operation, the Bill could succeed, but I am convinced that unless reform is effected on the lines of Amendment No. 77, it will not. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I promise that I shall not exceed five minutes. Although I agree with many of the points
558
just made, one central ingredient of the legal aid system has been missed by the noble Lord. I refer to firms that practise in areas where there is little or no private work, which are wholly dependent on legal aid. Such firms practise because they have a sense of obligation to the public, to which the noble Lord referred. They are certainly not the fat cats. They subsist on incomes that are very low. I can vouch for that because I had a practice in East London where, at the time, I was able to rely on a good deal of private work to subsidise legal aid. Such private work is not available in that area now on any scale.
I wish that it were possible for some of my ministerial colleagues to see some of those firms for themselves, rather than relying on hearsay, and observe the difficulties under which they work on a day-to-day basis. At the same time, those firms provide a fantastic service. Yes, they make mistakes, but who does not? Even Ministers, Members of Parliament and Members in all parts of your Lordships' House make mistakes from time to time.
Noble Lords: No! Withdraw!
Lord Clinton-Davis: Some of my noble friends are living in a sort of grandiosity.
The fact remains that, on the whole, such firms provide an excellent service. I worry that if legal aid work dries up—I am not sure that the calculations are right—the profession will attract younger people who are content with doing some pro bono work only when they are involved with big firms. I do not decry that. It is a good thing that they should—but it will not answer the Bill.
It is imperative that we keep an eye open with regard to what future entrants to the profession will be like. Will they feel that they can afford to undertake, with a sense of nobility, the vital work of serving working-class people? I know that we are not supposed to talk about working-class people these days, but I refer to those in areas of extreme poverty. Will young people want to enter that part of the legal profession when they can much more easily obtain work in some of the bigger firms in the City and provinces? I worry about that. I made that point at Second Reading.
I have spoken for three minutes and it is right that my noble and learned friend should answer many of the invaluable points put by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. However, the noble Lord is not the only practising solicitor in this House; I just want to point that out. I see behind me another practising solicitor as well as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—my noble friend in every sense. So there are four of us present; the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, did not do us any service by arrogating to himself a sense of exclusivity.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, eloquently expressed his concerns about these proposals, as it is true to say he has done on several previous occasions, notably in this Chamber on the Second Reading of this Bill. However, I cannot

559
help pointing out that his speech on Second Reading was shorter than the speech he has delivered at this stage.
Identifying the lines of battle precisely is of value. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, proposes that every single solicitor who meets the quality standard should be entitled to be funded by the Legal Aid Board or its equivalent. He shakes his head, but that is what he has been arguing; that is what his amendment said. What is more, he said that there should be no competitive tendering. He said that the legal services commission should be a unique hirer of services in this country, obliged to buy from whoever can meet the standards set; in other words, let the providers of services be in the unique position where they can force upon the buyer of those services the need to buy them.
The noble Lord shakes his head, but that is what the amendment says; that is what he has been arguing and that is what he specifically said in the course of his speech today. He said it was only a coincidence that he was a solicitor and that this is not special pleading for solicitors; but the way it came across sounded like solicitors seeking a special and privileged position in relation to their funding.
Perhaps I may make clear to the noble Lord what we do not dispute in what he said. We do not dispute that many solicitors do a splendid job; nor do we dispute that there are things that solicitors do that no advice centre or citizens advice bureau could possibly do; nor do we dispute that there are cases where the work they put in is second to none. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis should not say that we are unaware of the splendid service that solicitors provide.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I was not saying that. I was saying that Ministers may not be aware of the day-to-day problems solicitors face. Many judges have no idea of them at all.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not speaking for the judges, but many Members of this Committee, including myself, are aware of the problems that solicitors face. I am also aware of the fact that they are not a tranche of extremely rich people. However, that does not mean that we can fail to deal with the problem of a legal aid budget that is out of control.
The noble Lord's concern was that the Bill, as he put it, will severely restrict people's access to publicly funded legal services. I and those promoting this Bill fully share the objective of securing the widest possible access to quality services. It is not the intention of the Bill to reduce quality access; nor do I believe that that will be the effect. Although the pattern of provision will undoubtedly change to some degree, the community legal service will improve and extend access in a variety of ways while ensuring the quality of the service provided.
As I pointed out, the purpose of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is to ensure that all legal service providers who meet the quality standards
560
defined by the legal services commission under Clause 5(5) would be entitled to provide services under the scheme if they chose to do so. The terms of the remuneration would be set, according to his amendment, by the commission after consultation with the lawyer applying to take a case. I cannot accept that amendment and, if I may, I should like to take some time to explain why.
I have written to the noble Lord on this subject since Second Reading, as he kindly pointed out, and for the benefit of all your Lordships I shall set out the points, in addition to those that he kindly attributed to me, that I made to him, in that correspondence.
It has become increasingly clear that in using the phrase "exclusive contracting" we, on this side, have not been sufficiently explicit. That has, not unreasonably, led some to understand that phrase to mean that there will be only one provider in any given geographical location. That is not the intention of the amendments. Exclusivity was only ever intended to refer to the fact that the proposals contained in the Bill move away from the present position where any solicitors' firm may undertake legal aid work to a position in which the commission will enter into contracts with as many quality assured suppliers as it needs in order to meet the demand or need for services. In that sense, contracts will be "exclusive" to them: for instance, it is only those with a contract who can be funded by the legal services commission. The type of contracts and the number will be determined by local need within the overall priorities of government. That will allow us to provide real access to justice in areas where access is most needed.
Contracts are extremely flexible instruments. They can incorporate any terr agreed by the parties to them. We see that flexibility as the great merit of contracting and as the means of delivering publicly funded legal services. We have tried, in the White Paper and elsewhere, to give an indication of the sorts of contracts that we see as being typical in the future. For most types of civil litigation, for example, we would expect to use fixed-price and volume contracts covering all but very high-cost cases. However, that model should not be seen as a straitjacket into which everything will be forced. On the contrary, it will be possible to adopt different approaches in different circumstances so as to achieve the best overall outcome in terms of access, quality and price. That may lead, for example, to different types of contracts in rural and urban areas. Indeed, in time we hope to be able to use the opportunities offered by contracting to improve access in those areas where there is little or none at present.
Providing access to lawyers does not require that whatever may have gone on before has to be continued in perpetuity: that any and every attempt to concentrate on particular suppliers is a diminution of effective access. The board has suggested that in order to provide adequate access for the first phase of contracts, for advice and assistance and full legal aid for family cases, it needs in the region of 3,200 suppliers. The cry has gone up that that is too few. The cry from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is not only that that is too few, but that everybody who passes the quality standard should be allowed to supply.
The figure of 3,200 comes from the Legal Aid Board's consultation paper Reforming the Civil Advice and Assistance Scheme, published in April 1998, and it is the board's estimate of the numbers needed to provide adequate coverage; it is not some arbitrary limit or target. As a result of that assessment, the board has, in some areas of work, been able to guarantee contracts in the initial round of contracting to all firms who presently hold franchises. That has been possible for family work where the board expects contracts broadly to maintain the existing pattern, and in immigration and mental health work where there are currently relatively few franchisees.
That figure of 3,200 has to be compared, for example, with the number of Jobcentres in England and Wales, of which there are 881. The noble Lord sneered at that comparison. He said that the people who go to jobcentres are fit and healthy men and women who are all looking for jobs and that they do not need the sort of outreach access that solicitors provide. The noble Lord also sneered at the comparison with benefit offices. I referred to 546 of them in my letter. He also said—and I find this quite hard to believe—that it is hale and hearty people who go to benefit offices. If the noble Lord were to visit a benefit office, he would realise that that is not correct.
We must be clear that part of the ethos of the community legal service will be to provide an integrated network of services where people can go to obtain advice. Some of the services will be funded directly through the community legal service fund by contracts with not-for-profit organisations. There are some 1,500 advice agencies with over 3,000 outlets. All contracts will include a tolerance margin, typically perhaps 10 per cent., representing the proportion of work that the provider may undertake outside the named contract categories. This provides an additional element of flexibility, in particular to cover cases outside the established franchise categories and clients with complex problems covering several categories.
Finally, if a particular problem with access is highlighted, it will be perfectly possible to require lawyers' firms or not-for-profit advice agencies to offer what are described as outreach facilities; that is, bringing the advice to the people who need it, whether through home visits or occasional but regular attendance at a local venue. All these things are possible under the scheme that we envisage. The touchstone for whether they will be necessary is the need to make access a reality. As I explained, I believe that access will always mean access with choice among a number of suppliers, such suppliers all reaching the standard set by the legal services commission.
It is worth perhaps setting out how we propose to take forward the move to a fully contracted system. The change will be implemented in careful stages. The Legal Aid Board and, in due course, the commission will continue to test different types of contract in pilot schemes before rolling them out more widely. This will not only enable the commission to determine the best arrangements to fit different circumstances; it will also ensure that providers have time to adapt to change. For example, from January 2000, representation in family
562
litigation will be provided by firms with a family franchise. These initial contracts, mostly running for three years, will in essence be licences to continue to take on family cases with payment remaining on a case-by-case basis at existing prescribed fees and rates. For the second round of contracts, however, I would expect the commission to develop contracts that fix price and caseload and introduce an element of competition in the way that contracts are awarded. A similar phased approach to contracting for other types of case is envisaged in due course.
It will be perfectly possible for firms of all sizes to obtain contracts. There will be no bias in favour of larger firms. The commission will make plain the need it is seeking to meet and the contracts it needs to let. Of course, smaller firms will not be expected to provide the same quantity of services as larger firms. They will be expected to deliver the same quality and value for money, but that is only right. I do not see in our proposals any reason for smaller firms to feel that they are to be excluded from this work. Quite the reverse. In simple business terms, what we are offering for those who secure contracts is a certain cash flow for a defined amount of work.
This last point is an important one and demonstrates the fundamental shift in the task of the commission as purchaser, which we are determined to achieve. We want the commission to become a proactive purchaser of legal services and not, as the present board largely is, a reactive payer of lawyers' bills. We cannot hope to ensure that legal aid money is used to the best effect if we cannot be sure both about the amount of services that are being supplied and the price that we can expect to pay for them. I can think of no area of economic activity where a purchaser of services is required simply to purchase services from whoever wishes to supply him without having any right to chose who should supply him and at what price. I believe that that holds just as true when the Government are purchasing services.
It is for that reason—and this is at the heart of the debate—that we cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment. If it were carried into the Bill it would give a guarantee to any solicitor's firm which met the quality standard a right to do legal aid work irrespective of the amount of work that was done. It would place the commission back in the place of a reactive payer of bills. Moreover, the commission, in seeking to agree remuneration, would be in a position of considerable disadvantage because of the guaranteed right of the lawyer to do the work. If such a thing were possible, it might lead to a worse position than we have presently. It would make it impossible in future to refocus resources on priorities, or to improve value for money by introducing an element of competition. Also, any requirement to define in statute or regulations the standard that created the guarantee would tend to stifle further development of the existing franchising system (for example, streamlining its bureaucracy and introducing outcome monitoring).
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is concerned that by excluding firms whose work is primarily in the private sector we shall exclude expertise which these firms can bring to legal aid work and

563
perhaps exclude idealistic young lawyers. I have to say to him that I do not believe that will be the outcome. I cannot accept that the kind of expertise to which the noble Lord refers does not exist in firms who may undertake a substantial part of their work for legally aided clients. I am also sure that idealism can be found among lawyers working for legal aid firms, both among younger and older lawyers. In the light of my remarks I respectfully ask the noble Lord to rethink his position and withdraw his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am prepared to withdraw the amendment at this stage but I shall wish to revisit this principle at Report stage. I hope it is appropriate to respond to the noble and learned Lord's comments now. If I may say so, I believe the noble and learned Lord has proceeded on the basis of a distortion of Amendment No. 77, which is tied both to quality and remuneration that is "broadly fair". I believe that would give the Legal Aid Board or its successor ample opportunity to ensure that the Exchequer was protected.
Further, lawyers do not simply bowl up to the Legal Aid Board clutching their bills; they have to have clients who want them to do the work. I have heard nothing in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has said which in any way assuages my sense that the outcome of this provision will be little saving on cost, considerable loss of quality and radical loss of access. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 80:
Page 4, line 40, after ("bodies") insert ("(which may include non-profit-making bodies maintaining a contingency legal aid fund or similar arrangement)").
The noble Lord said: This is really an amendment on which to hang the peg of the discussion of the conditional legal aid fund. I would prefer to hold my fire until we reach Amendment No. 143 which deals with this matter at much greater length. We shall not reach that amendment tonight. Therefore I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert (",or

(h) making payments to persons or bodies in respect of advice or assistance by them, according to independently verifiable criteria defined within a graduated fee scheme.").

The noble Lord said: This is in the nature of a probing amendment to seek the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on a graduated fee scheme in the civil theatre—we already have a graduated fee
564
scheme in criminal cases—and to what extent, if that were instituted, it would be respected by the legal services commission. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 81 is linked to Amendment No. 159. I shall deal with both amendments together. The purpose of both these amendments is to add to Clauses 7(3) and 13(2) a similar requirement; namely, to provide for the making of,
"payments to persons or bodies in respect of advice or assistance by them, according to independently verifiable criteria defined within a graduated fee scheme".
These amendments are unnecessary and unacceptable. Clause 7(3)(b) and Clause 13(2)(b) already provide adequate powers to the commission to fund services by payments to bodies and individuals. The mechanism for doing so must be a matter for the commission and not something that needs to be set out in statute. Moreover, the particular mechanism is one used almost exclusively by the Bar. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already said in reply to an earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the Bar ought to have nothing to fear from the reforms that he plans. It should be looking towards organising itself to make the most of the opportunities that the reforms offer it and not seeking to entrench for all time the current practices, which may not necessarily be in the best interests of the Bar. In those circumstances, I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: In view of the tone in which the noble and learned Lord responded to my amendment, I can see that I am not going to make any progress on it tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 82 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 inclusive.
[Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("areas") and insert ("communities").
The noble and learned Lord said: I mentioned at Second Reading that the word "community" appears in the description of the community legal service but, as far as I have been able to ascertain—and someone may be able to correct me—it does not appear anywhere else. On looking over the provisions of the Bill it occurred to me that we ought to get in the idea of local community. We are not talking about the community legal service as equivalent to the civil and family legal services. We are trying to get to the idea of a service based upon, and using what has been developed within, communities; to build on that, and to provide a really effective system throughout England and Wales.
On looking through the Bill, it occurred to me that although subsection (4) of Clause 7 uses a very usual formula in different areas of England and Wales as the

565
power to make different provisions for different places, it would be quite a neat place in which to put in the word "communities" instead of "areas". That would give the community legal service a kind of local community connection. It would not do any harm. The word "communities" is at least as definite as the singular "community" and therefore there is no ambiguity. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am minded to consider favourably the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord. It could achieve greater flexibility as it might allow the commission to target non-geographical communities such as ethnic communities. As the noble and learned Lord points out, the word "community" lives happily with a community legal service. Perhaps the wording could refer to areas or communities. I shall reflect on that. On the basis that I will consider the matter favourably, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am extremely happy to withdraw my amendment. I am content that the noble and learned Lord may weave the idea of local communities into a better formula. It is quite important that there is a connection between the community legal service and what we understand as communities—be they ethnic, geographical or other types. That should be achieved if possible. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his kind consideration of my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 5, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (6A) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be to your Lordships' advantage to discuss Amendments Nos. 87, 88, 89, 97 and 98 with this amendment. Of those, Amendment No. 86 is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 88, and Amendment No. 98 is an example of the application of Amendment No. 88.
I hope that it is an omen that this amendment has been called at a time when my noble and learned friend is obviously receptive to suggestions. Certainly you cannot be hurt for hoping.
One important purpose of the Bill is to ensure if possible that legal aid is directed to those purposes for which it is most needed. Sadly, but inevitably, one implication of that is that it is directed away from purposes for which it is not so necessary because other forms of provision exist. I have no quarrel with that and I accept that that is what my noble and learned friend is seeking to do in Schedule 2. But I am sure he would agree that, if one proposes to cut the lifeline, one needs to be very sure that the oxygen cylinder is firmly in place. Schedule 2 is probably the most dangerous part of the whole Bill, at least in relation to legal service. We must scrutinise it carefully to ensure that nothing is excluded from funding unless there really is alternative provision.
Paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 2 would exclude all proceedings for negligence other than for clinical negligence. I have no complaint about excluding proceedings for damage to property, but as presently drafted the paragraph would exclude the whole field of personal injury work. This is not the occasion to embark on a discussion of what proportion of public resources are consumed by this subject—a large percentage of costs are recovered from defendants—and I hope we do not muddy the waters with that dispute. For this purpose, I am happy to assume that it would represent a significant saving. It is arguable that if an effective alternative exists, those outgoings should be saved. However, if no such alternative exists, this call on public funding certainly should not be excluded. That is the purpose of my amendments.
I am conscious that there is no unanimity even about that combined proposition. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in his amendments in this group, would go further than that. I think I understand the reasons for that. Even the Bar Council, to which we are all indebted for so much very wise and careful advice in the course of these debates, was considering at one stage making that concession. I understand that it now believes that that would be going too far as there may always be some need for advice and assistance in personal injury cases, but no doubt this is an ongoing discussion.
As I understand it, the Government's argument is that there is an effective alternative in the form of conditional fees. I am aware of the arguments of principle against conditional fees. I agree that the new system carries dangers. That is not the point of this amendment. If I could be assured that anyone with a reasonable claim to compensation for personal injury would have adequate access to advice, assistance and representation, I would not wish now to persevere with this amendment. But conditional fees are at an early stage in their life.
There are, of course, some statistics on this. I must confess that I have always mistrusted statistics since I saw a document headed "The House of Lords broken down by age and sex". But we have seen the statistics. We have also seen a plethora of anecdotal evidence, one way or the other, as to how necessary it is to find a firm of solicitors prepared to undertake a claim for personal injury when, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, reminded us at Second Reading, the evidence may be complicated, the outlay on experts' fees substantial, the client less than articulate, taking instructions' protracted exercise, and on which there may be discussions as to the level of mark-up required. Similarly, we have heard disturbing murmurings about the reluctance of some insurers to provide insurance for certain categories of situation. This amendment is simply an invitation to your Lordships to consider whether withdrawing the ladder may be premature unless we can be satisfied that the rope is firmly in place.
I am grateful to the Legal Action Group for pointing out that in the funding code the question is approached from a rather different angle from how it is in the Bill. Paragraph 2.6 states that the commission should satisfy

567
itself in each case that conditional fees are a viable alternative before funding for a particular purpose is withdrawn. The effect of sub-paragraph (b) of my amendment would be precisely that. It is not what the Bill now provides. I hope that my noble and learned friends will agree that there is at least a substantial reason for anxiety about this matter. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I have put my name to a series of other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 87, 89, 97 and 98. I warmly endorse all the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
Conditional fee agreements (CFAs) have made a reasonably encouraging start in road accident cases. Such cases are very much a category of their own. They have a number of special features. First, it is almost always clear that someone is at fault. In many cases of personal injury that is the problem, because one starts by having to find out whether there was any fault at all. Secondly, in motor accident cases involving personal injury there is the advantage of the police investigation, which will probably have established exactly who is at fault and the nature of the fault.
That being so, it is obvious that the problems with personal injury cases arising out of road accidents are much easier to solve than other personal injury cases. It is therefore much easier to find a solicitor who is willing to enter into a CFA; and one is looking not only at the CFA but also the availability of insurance which the plaintiff must have in order to cover the risk of being ordered to pay the costs of the other parties.
In other kinds of case the availability of CFAs is far from proven. There are reports of considerable difficulties in obtaining after-the-event insurance for cases of that kind. One can imagine personal injury cases of considerable complexity. There is an exception for medical negligence cases, but that is far from being the only case in which there may be very complicated issues of causation.
Let us take a simple example. Most of us remember, a few years ago, the collapse of the tower block at Ronan Point. Someone injured in that collapse—as might be the case in some similar event in the future—might well have had enormous difficulty and a great deal of investigation might have been required to find out who was at fault, what the nature of the fault was, and who was the right person to sue. In cases of that kind it is hardly conceivable that one will be able to obtain viable levels of insurance.
Surely the situation here is that for the time being the Government should adopt the other position and say that personal injury cases remain available for public funding; they are not included in Schedule 2. The legal services commission will rightly have to bear in mind that it will not be expected to fund cases where CFAs are reasonably available. That is clearly within the spirit and intention of the legislation. I am saying that if all personal injury cases except cases of clinical negligence are excluded, there is a real risk that people who have suffered serious, possibly catastrophic injuries from
568
non-road cases may simply not find themselves with the possibility of going to law to obtain the damages to which they are entitled. There is a serious risk of that happening.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, properly concentrated on Schedule 2 and the amendments in relation to it. I cannot accept either of these amendments, but I understand the concerns that may have led noble Lords to table them. In particular, many people have expressed their concerns that excluding proceedings about personal injury on the face of the Bill may in future lead to deserving cases being denied funding of any kind. I have consulted widely on this issue and I am satisfied that those concerns are unfounded. It is my view that the majority of personal injury cases do not warrant public funding in the future because there is a viable alternative in the private sector; namely, conditional fee agreements.
I am confident that conditional fee agreements can provide effective access to justice in this area. Conditional fees represent potentially profitable business for solicitors. And while some of the risk management in operating conditional fees will provide challenges to the way that some firms run their businesses, I must point out that there is nothing new about the approaches that may be required. We all know that for decades well organised firms of solicitors, often acting for trades unions or legal expenses insurers, have taken claims on the equivalent of this basis. What is more, they have done so without demanding money up front to cover the running costs of the cases, arranging loans for the clients or even telling expert witnesses and others that they must wait until the end of the case to be paid.
In recent years such arrangements have been supplemented by allowing lawyers to charge an uplift on their fees when they win. Clause 28 will allow the successful party to recover from the other side the success fee that he has to pay his lawyer under a conditional fee agreement. That means that the successful plaintiff will not have to pay the success fee out of his own damages. Together, these changes have increased, and will increase, the incentives for lawyers and their clients to pursue personal injury cases in this way.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. If the noble and learned Lord is so confident that this is the case, why would it not be sufficient to say that personal injury cases will not be funded out of the community legal service fund where CFAs are available and leave it at that rather than having an absolute exclusion?
The Lord Chancellor: The object of excluding them is to make available for other purposes the resources that would otherwise be expended on these cases. If the private sector can support these cases—and we are confident that it can—the advantage is that resources are freed for other purposes, in particular the development of the community legal service.

569
Insurance has become available to cover the client's risk of having to pay costs. If they want to, even solicitors can insure to cover their own costs if the case is lost. The development of the insurance market is clearly important in this area and I am confident that it is developing well. I know of at least 10 insurers who are willing to provide after-the-event insurance. They include First Assist, Greystoke Legal Services, Abbey Legal Protection and Litigation Protection Limited. We know that one insurer alone has written 50,000 policies. And the prices of policies are not prohibitive. They are well within the kind of up-front costs that a solicitor should be able to bear or which a loan could cover, bearing in mind that the policy itself would cover the loan if the case were lost. For example, the Law Society's package, which is provided by Guinness Mahon, is available for approximately £90 to £170.
The removal of public funding from most personal injury cases is not based on a prayer. It is based on long-established and ever more accessible arrangements for funding these cases in the private sector. It is not just the Government who say that. Some noble Lords may have seen the press notice issued last March by Thompsons, one of the major personal injury firms. It said of the publication of our consultation paper, Access to Justice with Conditional Fees, that this was an opportunity to tackle difficult issues and create a new legal services framework based on fairness, need and value for money. With proper safeguards for the poorest and most vulnerable, the proposals to replace legal aid with no win no fee deals would put people first, not lawyers. Too many lawyers had for too long thought the world owed them a living—those days have now ended. Lawyers would have to wean themselves off the easy money of legal aid and adapt to the new legal landscape. Those are not the words of the Government, but of Thompsons, a leading firm of personal injury lawyers. I agree with those sentiments.
However, because I am aware that it will not be possible overnight to fund personal injury cases through conditional fees in all circumstances, I shall have the flexibility through my direction-making powers under Clauses 4 and 7(7) to allow the funding of such cases in some circumstances. It may be, for example, that some funding will be needed where there are exceptionally high investigative or overall costs, or issues of a wider public interest.
If the worst came to the worst, and the market for conditional fees in personal injury cases, particularly for the poor and vulnerable, was not functioning effectively—I do not believe for a second that that would happen—I would consider making directions or regulations which brought a wide range of personal injury cases back into scope. Alternatively, I could consider making decisions which would allow the commission to intervene in individual cases where someone was having difficulty obtaining a conditional fee arrangement and where there was a clear case of hardship. Of course, the case would still have to be assessed under the funding code. To take that approach to individual cases, I would need to amend Clause 7(7), but, as I have said, I would consider that. Therefore, we
570
are not proceeding on a hymn and a prayer but on a soundly based judgment, and I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble and learned friend has given a partially encouraging response, but one that is not wholly realistic when it comes to personal injury cases. I am aware of Thompsons and its very big reputation, but I do not agree entirely with that organisation in this matter. I do not wholly disagree with Thompsons, but I do disagree in part. The argument about trade unions and insurers requiring solicitors to bear the costs of disbursements as cases proceed depends on the extent of that disbursement. If the disbursement is very heavy, one must bear in mind that other disbursements are in train at one and the same time and the solicitors are required to bear that under the scheme that my noble and learned friend suggests.
Looking more closely at the background, I invite my noble and learned friend (if, for a moment, he can desist speaking to the Deputy Chief Whip, attractive though that may be) to consider the time before legal aid made interim payments as cases progressed. That was introduced precisely because the burden on those firms that carried out a good deal of legal aid was just too heavy. The very fact that we still have that system indicates that the problem is rather greater than my noble and learned friend suggests. It depends on the extent of the burden confronting the individual firm. There are firms which will find the position difficult. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should recognise that many experts will still not defer their fees. For the benefit of his client, the solicitor has to find an expert who will defer fees. It does not occur all that easily, in particular as regards medical witnesses.
My noble and learned friend has not given due credit to these difficulties. I am not convinced that a study by KPMG—another excellent firm of accountants—is a satisfactory substitute for the complaints made to me by individual firms of solicitors. My noble and learned friend may be 100 per cent. right. He then has a job of conversion to do. He must be able to persuade those firms which carry a heavy burden at present that what he is doing will provide proper protection for their clients. That is the first priority and of paramount concern. I do not think that that has occurred yet. At best it is a job of conversion; at worst, from the Government's point of view, it is a job of looking again at the situation.
My noble and learned friend says helpfully that he will keep an open mind on these matters to see whether great difficulties arise, particularly for people in personal injury cases. We shall have to rely upon that. I have known my noble and learned friend for many years. I am not sure whether I have ever briefed him; I have briefed many members of his chambers. However, these are problems which arise daily in the

571
lives of clients in the areas to which I alluded. I ask my noble and learned friend to keep a very open mind on these matters, otherwise real tragedies can occur.
Lord Goodhart: It is not my intention on this occasion to move Amendment No. 87 or the other amendments in the group. But it is likely to be a point to which we shall wish to return.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for their support. I accept that my noble and learned friend has directed his mind to the questions which we raised and that he is satisfied that conditional fee agreements and insurances are sufficiently available to provide alternatives. Those who said that the "Titanic" was unsinkable had directed their minds to the question. They, too, had consulted and made inquiries. My noble and learned friend denies that he is proceeding on a hymn and a prayer. I have more confidence in hymns and prayers than in some confident predictions I have heard.
I do not see at present the answer to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that one might provide that public funding from this source should be available if it transpires in an individual case that
572
conditional fee agreements are not available. If I may say so with the greatest respect to my own Front Bench, it is difficult to address arguments to a concerted conversation. The proposal which came from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, answered the argument of my noble and learned friend that we want to have resources available for other purposes.
If in a particular case it transpired that there was an alternative provision, the resource would be available for other purposes, so it is difficult to see what is the answer to that proposal. I have no doubt that if there were a crisis my noble and learned friend would intervene. It would give me no great pleasure in two years' time to say, "I told you so". But there it is, we have tried tonight. It may be that we shall return to the issue at a later stage in our deliberations, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Pensioners: Minimum Income Guarantee
  Pensioners: Minimum Income Guarantee
  Retirement Pensions: Expatriate Pensioners
  Retirement Pensions: Expatriate Pensioners
  State Second Pension: Broken Work Records
  State Second Pension: Broken Work Records
  Financial Services and Markets: Responses to Draft Bill
  Financial Services and Markets: Responses to Draft Bill
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Braille Grant to RNIB
  Braille Grant to RNIB
  MISC 5
  MISC 5
  Register of British Ships
  Register of British Ships
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Applications: Secretary of State's Involvement
  Planning Applications: Secretary of State's Involvement
  Planning Decisions: Average Length of Time
  Planning Decisions: Average Length of Time
  Cross-Channel Rail Passenger Services
  Cross-Channel Rail Passenger Services
  Rail Freight Terminals
  Rail Freight Terminals
  Prison Service Race Relations Group Report
  Prison Service Race Relations Group Report
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Human Cloning
  Human Cloning
  NHS Budget: Proportion Spent on Men and Women
  NHS Budget: Proportion Spent on Men and Women