Sitting of 25 January 1999

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

    The Gulf (Security)
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the security situation in the Gulf. [65523]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Saddam Hussein's war machine has been seriously weakened by Operation Desert Fox. We estimate that 87 per cent. of targets were either destroyed or damaged—a very impressive performance. Saddam' s ability to make or use chemical and biological weapons or otherwise threaten his neighbours has been set back significantly. He, however, remains the greatest threat to security in the Gulf, and we are now acting to contain him in the future.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue to patrol the no-fly zones to protect the Kurds and Marsh Arabs from further atrocities at the hands of Saddam Hussein, whose complete and flagrant
    2
    disregard for United Nations resolutions and human rights is plain for all to see? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that attempted comparisons between Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship and the democracy of the state of Israel are wholly fallacious and misplaced?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right about the no-fly zones. They were established for good and humanitarian purposes, inasmuch as Saddam Hussein had at various times threatened and attacked the Shia Muslims in the south of his country and the Kurds in the north. We shall continue to patrol the zones, although this isolated and increasingly desperate dictator is clearly using them, and the violations of them, to heighten the temperature. He has violated the zones well over 50 times, and his missiles have repeatedly tracked and threatened our aircraft.
    We will continue the patrols, and any attempt to interfere with or attack coalition aircraft will be met with an appropriate and robust response.
    There is no comparison between a democracy such as Israel, and a complete and utter dictatorship such as Saddam' s Iraq.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Secretary of State congratulate the officers and men of 12 Squadron Royal Air Force, whose offensive operations from Kuwait during Operation Desert Fox were greatly admired by, I think, the whole House and the country? Will he assure us that there will be enough Tornado aircraft for units to be rotated through the Gulf and to be stationed there for an appropriate length of time, in view of the rundown of aircraft to meet the requirement for midlife updates, and the rundown of squadrons envisaged by the strategic defence review?
    Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commendation of 12 Squadron. I, too, commended its members when I greeted them at RAF Lossiemouth on their return from the Gulf. I shook hands with every individual who came off the plane. We are all very proud

    3
    of what the squadron did in the name of international law and order. They all—ground and air crew—went out to risk their lives in the interests of the safety of the states in the Gulf region.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our not having the resources to ensure that Tornado aircraft are there, as part of our containment policy in relation to Saddam and also to police the no-fly zones. These are important missions, and they will be well staffed.
    Mr. George Galloway: My right hon. Friend's robust defence of Mr. Netanyahu's Israel will have been widely noted by those in Arab and Muslim circles who watch our debates. He did not, robustly or otherwise, refer to the missiles that struck the ancient Arab port city of Basra this morning, leading—as this afternoon's television showed us—to the death of innocent women and children whose houses were bombed by the Smart missiles of whose staggering accuracy we were told in December.
    As my right hon. Friend's policy is now bereft of support from any country in the world except the United States, Britain and Israel, is it not time that this verminous desert fox was put to sleep?
    Mr. Robertson: Once again, it will be noticed that my hon. Friend did not utter a word of criticism about Saddam Hussein, what he is doing and what he has done in the past. We shall note other comments carefully in the light of that.
    Let me point out to my hon. Friend that yesterday the Government of Iraq stormed out of a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League, on the basis that they were not receiving the support that they required from the Arab countries. Nor have they and nor will they, because the Arab countries see Saddam Hussein as the man responsible for bringing on his own people the iniquities of which he makes so much.
    The recent Operation Desert Fox took place with precision guided weapons. The world, and, indeed, the Iraqi regime, have not been able to make capital out of collateral damage or civilian deaths, but, in the wake of that, Saddam has chosen to violate the no-fly zones set up in support of UN Security Council Resolution 688. He shows no compunction in deploying surface-to-air missiles into urban areas as well.
    On our part, however, we take care during any action, whether it be offensive, for example, Operation Desert Fox, which was directed against his military and war machine, or whether it is in response to attacks on the aircraft in the no-fly zones. We cannot take into account actions taken by Saddam Hussein when he moves his missiles around. Iraqi claims of civilian casualties today are being investigated, but it is much too early to expect an outcome.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not the fragility of the security situation in the Gulf caused by Iraq's military manoeuvres near the Kuwaiti border; by the radar tracking of aircraft which endeavour to enforce the no-fly zones; and by Iraq's attempted intimidation of other Arab Governments? Does the Secretary of State recognise that the resistance of those Governments at the weekend provides an opportunity for increased
    4
    co-operation between this Government and those countries and between the European Union and those countries, so as to maintain the political consensus against Saddam Hussein?
    Mr. Robertson: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his elevation to the Privy Council. He is absolutely right. Indeed, the recent threats by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq against Kuwait showed precisely what are still Saddam's objectives in that area. Therefore, we will stay alert. That is why HMS Invincible is on her way and will arrive in the Gulf region within the next few days. I am also delighted to be able to tell the House that the invitation to tender for the initial assessment phase of the new carrier project has been released to industry today. It is a huge signal of our continued interest in the safety of the countries in the Gulf that we have sent HMS Invincible, an asset of undoubted character, quality and, indeed, intimidation to Saddam. Future generations will be able to rely on a successor generation of aircraft carriers.
    Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the only reason why sanctions on Iraq are not lifted is Saddam Hussein's behaviour? If he kept to the UN resolutions, the sanctions would be lifted.
    What progress has been made towards extending the no-fly zones to a no-drive zone? The Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south are concerned that Saddam Hussein seems to be making even more nasty noises in their direction than he has in recent months.
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as she has been for a long time, in pointing out that sanctions can easily be lifted on the decision of Saddam Hussein himself. He has that within his gift if he simply complies with the terms of the UN Security Council resolutions to which he adhered at the end of the Gulf war. We must therefore judge his complaints about the nature of the impact of sanctions in the light of the fact that it would be relatively simple for him to disclose his past history of holding weapons of mass destruction, ensure that those weapons were destroyed and give the assurances that are required by the international community about his future behaviour.
    We believe that the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq are sufficient at the moment to contain Saddam Hussein's hostile intent against the domestic population in those areas, but any subsequent moves that he makes will be examined with a view to seeing what more can be done to ensure that his population and the populations of surrounding countries are protected.
    Mr. Robert Key: Given that the Prime Minister has told us that we have put Saddam back in his cage and that the Secretary of State has confirmed that, with 87 per cent. accuracy, we have degraded Saddam's military capability, when will the Secretary of State consider that we have achieved our military objectives? As we dig in deeper in the region, what are the political objectives and will they require further military commitment?
    Mr. Robertson: The Prime Minister stated at the beginning of Operation Desert Fox that the objective of the military operation was to degrade Saddam Hussein's

    5
    military capabilities and to reduce the threat that he posed to his neighbours. It is the assessment of our Government and of the Government of the United States—with whom we were in partnership—that we have inflicted so much damage on Saddam's war machine that it has put his capability to threaten his neighbours back for one year, certainly, and perhaps for up to two years. The objective now is to produce a political track that, along with the military track, will contain Saddam's ability to threaten his neighbours and get us to the point at which he will comply with the Security Council resolutions and make the Gulf and the wider middle eastern region safer than it is today.
    Mr. Dale Campbell—Savours: Did my right hon. Friend see the very interesting article by Marie Colvin in The Sunday Times yesterday, drawing attention to the development of an enclave in southern Iraq? That policy is being pursued by the Americans. I have repeatedly asked for such a policy on a Basra enclave. Could we enter into discussions with the Americans on the development of such a policy and find ways in which we can contribute, because some of us believe that that is the only way to sort out the dilemma?
    Mr. Robertson: As it happens, I did not manage to read that article in The Sunday Times yesterday, but I recognise that some people hold strongly to the view that that is a way to deal with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his own population and to the rest of the region. We are considering all such ideas, together with our discussions with the Iraqi opposition. The main message that we have to get across to the international community and to the people of Iraq, by whatever means possible, is that Iraq has a proud future among the nations of the world, but that it is unlikely to be able to play a dignified part in world affairs as long as Saddam Hussein leads the current regime.

    Parachute Regiment
    Mr. Bob Russell: When he will announce the location of the Parachute Regiment as a result of the strategic defence review. [65524]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I hope to be able to announce the future location of the Parachute Regiment in the near future.
    Mr. Russell: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a lot of anxiety in the garrison towns of Colchester and Aldershot about where the Parachute Regiment will eventually be based, given that the strategic defence review proposed that 24 Air Mobile Brigade in Colchester should be brought together with the Parachute Regiment in Aldershot? Surely the time is long overdue for that anxiety to be put to one side. All the personnel, military and civilian, should know what is going on.
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right and we shall be able to do that shortly. I understand the concerns that he expresses on behalf of his constituents. He will be aware that a large number of moves—in the military as well as the geographical sense—were necessary in association with the creation of two new brigade
    6
    formations that arose from the strategic defence review. The issues are coming to a head and I hope to be able to make an announcement soon.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: While my right hon. Friend is considering the future of the paras, will he also consider the future of the 101 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and ensure that we get correct answers in the House? Will he ask the National Audit Office to investigate the misleading financial information that has come out?
    Mr. Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tenacious approach to the decision that we put forward on the restructuring and modernisation of the Territorial Army. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will have heard his words. All the decisions in the strategic defence review and the restructuring of the Territorial Army that was part of it were carefully considered in the wider context. The National Audit Office has a remit to look at all aspects of my Department, which it regularly does.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State persists with the fiction that no decision has been made, but it is not good enough to tell the House that. Is he aware that the Aldershot News carries detailed information from documents provided by the military showing the advanced stage of the plans to move the Parachute Regiment and 5 Airborne Brigade from Aldershot to Colchester? It is not acceptable for the right hon. Gentleman to persist with the suggestion that no decision has been made, when the military has all the plans. May I remind him that the Defence Select Committee suggested that the Secretary of State, in making the decision—which appears to have been made, according to the reports—ought to give full justification for any move from Aldershot?
    Mr. Robertson: May I make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that the decision has not been taken? Ministers in my Department make decisions, and the relevant decision has not been made. Recommendations may be circulating among those up the military structure, but at the top of the chain of command are Ministers of the Crown, and we will take the decision.
    I understand that we have a friendly rivalry between the hon. Members representing the two garrison towns affected—the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Colchester (Mr. Russell)—and I can assure them that a wise and proper decision will be made. Aldershot is one of the four main Army garrison towns in the United Kingdom and the people there have always regarded themselves as a major part of the British Army. That will continue to be the case. Whatever the precise composition of the units at Aldershot, I do not reckon that there will be any great alteration to the numbers of people who are based there.
    Although we have not made a decision about the Parachute Regiment's location, I can announce that the Joint Helicopter Command—which will be part and parcel of that decision—will be based at the Army's Land Command headquarters at Wilton in Wiltshire. The headquarters will form on 1 October this year and will be fully operational by 1 April next year. Some 12,000

    7
    service personnel and 350 helicopters will, in the first instance, come under the command of Air Vice-Marshal David Niven.

    Gulf War Veterans
    Mr. Chris Pond: What measures he is taking to investigate the cause of health problems among Gulf war veterans. [65525]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): My Department is supporting research into Gulf veterans' illnesses, which currently comprises two major epidemiological studies, a neuromuscular symptoms study, an independent review of research literature and a programme to investigate possible interactions between the medical countermeasures which were used during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. Scientific research is, of course, only part of a wider programme of work by the MOD to address Gulf veterans' health concerns, which will continue for as long as it is needed.
    Mr. Pond: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Nigel Thompson, a severely disabled Gulf war veteran, who was recently presented with an award by the Prime Minister and opposition leaders for outstanding achievement through his work for the Royal British Legion and other veterans of the conflict? Although the recent King's college research concluded that there was no such thing as Gulf war syndrome, those engaged in the conflict did suffer from a number of conditions which were associated with their participation. Will my hon. Friend examine ways in which those brave people can be compensated adequately for those conditions?
    Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I join him in commending the work of Nigel Thompson, a Gulf war veteran. I wish to reassure people such as Nigel, who served in the Gulf and may be ill, that we are doing everything that we can to get to the bottom of what happened in the Gulf, and to try to find out what illnesses people suffered from and the cause of them. We are trying to find out how we can prevent those illnesses from recurring, and we are trying to help those currently suffering, including those who may be entitled to compensation. Those who are suffering can receive war pensions, but we are continuing to assess whether there are any other payments for which they may claim. I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that if compensation should be paid, it will be paid.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is the Minister aware of the damage that is being done to the morale of the excellent and dedicated teams of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency by the continued uncertainty about their prospects? In the light of that concern, will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to give a definite date for the publication of firm proposals on the future of the Defence Diversification Agency and that of DERA?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is totally out of order. We are moving on.

    Defence Diversification Agency
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: If he will make a statement on progress towards establishing a Defence Diversification Agency. [65527]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): As we foreshadowed in our November White Paper, the Defence Diversification Agency began work last month under its director designate, Joe Can, fulfilling yet another Government manifesto commitment. Officials are currently discussing with the Cabinet Office the appropriate status of the Defence Diversification Council, which will assist in the strategic oversight of the agency's work.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, that information and that good news. Will the agency work with other groups, and in particular with the new regional development agencies? Will it be tasked with trying to regenerate areas that were formerly dependent on defence work, starting the long programme of regeneration that was so sorely neglected by the previous Government?
    Mr. Spellar: We very much look forward to working with the regional development agencies, some of which have already started to be very active. Our work can dovetail with theirs, but they have a specific role and specific statutory duties while the agency will spread out the considerable body of scientific and technical knowledge that exists in Government laboratories to ensure that it is used much more widely in the commercial and industrial worlds, to the benefit of both working people and the economy.

    Information Warfare
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What steps are being taken to counter the threat of information warfare. [65528]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): As I explained to the hon. Lady in the Adjournment debate on information warfare on 4 November 1998, the Ministry of Defence has a wide range of measures in place to protect its systems from the threat of information warfare.
    Mrs. Lait: If a 15-year-old can break an encryption code, is the Minister worried that the defence encryption codes could be equally easily broken? If a pilotless Tornado is run by software that could be written abroad and hence be open to malign interference, does that concern him? When can we expect the statement that I was promised in that Adjournment debate—a promise that was repeated by two civil servants a month later? How short is shortly?
    Mr. Spellar: Very shortly. As I said in that Adjournment debate, the Government attach great importance to the protection of key information technology systems both in government and in the private sector, and we will very shortly announce new initiatives to enhance the defence of the critical national infrastructure against the risk of a disabling electronic attack.

    9
    We have several mechanisms for protecting information systems, one of which is restricting access. There are differences between the systems here and in other countries, and we have greater physical protections, so we cannot read across into this country from experiences abroad. We also undertake rigorous examination and checking of the software that is put in our equipment; and of course the Y2K problem is very much occupying the attention of our information technology people at this very moment.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: On information warfare, but much closer to home, does the Minister consider that it would be a futile exercise to caution the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister with responsibility for security about their foolhardiness in disseminating operational information for political reasons? Does he recognise the fact that currently and, more especially, in the future, if the violence escalates once again, soldiers' lives will be jeopardised by those Ministers—his colleagues—making public statements about operational matters? Is not it about time that the two Ministers concerned stopped pandering to the IRA in order to keep the ceasefire going?
    Mr. Spellar: We certainly do not recognise that situation. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that no Ministers in the Government would ever jeopardise in any way the operations or the security of our forces.

    Armed Forces (Civil Emergencies)
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on the capacity of the armed forces to assist the civil power in emergencies. [65529]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): There are long-standing and well-tried arrangements under which the civil authorities can request military assistance in an emergency. The capacity to assist depends at any time on the extent of other high-priority defence commitments and the nature of the assistance requested. Where urgent military assistance is sought to save lives, such requests take priority and the assistance is always given.
    Mr. Leigh: I recall that, when some of us set up the National Council for Civil Defence 15 years ago, we were given detailed assurances by the then Government about the ability of the Territorial Army to help in such emergencies. How will the recent cuts in the TA footprint across the country help the remaining units to assist the civil power? If the Minister cannot give a helpful reply, will he explain what other armed forces are ready to step in and whether they are not already overstretched?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he has asked that question on a previous occasion. I told him then that the armed forces have a responsibility to assist in civil defence when they are requested so to do, and that, in the vast majority of cases, that assistance is supplied by our regular forces. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to join me in commending B Company of the 1st Battalion of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, which helped in the search for the two girls who went missing in Sussex last week.
    10
    The capacity to help with civil defence does exist. In some circumstances, the Territorial Army has added to that capacity and, under our streamlining reforms, it will continue to be able to do so.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: As my hon. Friend may be aware, the Scarborough barracks site in Doncaster, currently the home of 219 Squadron Royal Logistic Corps, has been identified by the civil powers for use as a temporary mortuary in the event of a major disaster in South Yorkshire. Will my hon. Friend assure me that that role will be taken into account in any review of the continued use of such sites?
    Mr. Henderson: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to value the important contribution that the armed forces can make to civil defence provisions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already corresponded with people in the Doncaster area, and will continue to do so as he deals with the specific points that have been raised by the local community.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On the question of the Territorial Army footprint, is the Minister satisfied that geographical considerations have been taken fully into account? Will he pay particular attention to the position of Squadrons 236 and 237, whose sappers have done so much work in many of the emergencies that arise because of weather conditions in the north of Scotland? Is it not possible to retain at least one combined unit in that area?
    Mr. Henderson: I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that, when the review took place, very careful attention was paid to the United Kingdom's more remote geographical areas, including the area that she represents. I hope that she will also recognise that the ability to deploy resources wherever they are needed throughout the whole of the country is a valuable asset and that to undertake such provision solely in a Scottish context might incur much higher costs.
    We have taken extreme care to ensure that the TA footprint is present in the north of Scotland, and a significant TA facility was retained in Elgin, which, of course, will be able to help the community anywhere in the hon. Lady's constituency.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Kosovo. [65530]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The continuing killings and provocations by both the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Serbs constitute a spiralling escalation of violence which risks creating a humanitarian catastrophe. We all deplore this.
    Verifiers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe continue to report on the situation on the ground and to seek ways of reducing tension. Their constructive efforts have, in the past few days, secured the release of a number of hostages. The only way in which long-term stability can be restored in Kosovo is through political dialogue. The Contact Group, which met

    11
    on 22 January, is intensifying its effort to cajole both sides towards a settlement. We and the other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies nevertheless are taking preparatory steps to ensure that we are ready to take military action should this be required.
    Four more RAF Harriers are shortly to join the four other RAF Harriers and the much larger allied air force, which is already in Italy, and HMS Iron Duke is in the Adriatic as part of a NATO force.
    Nothing can justify the tragic events of 15 January, when 45 Kosovar Albanians were massacred, but both sides must share the blame for the on-going conflict. The Kosovo Liberation Army continues to use violence and terror against the people of Kosovo, but the primary responsibility for the crisis in Kosovo clearly lies with President Milosevic. He must show the vision to negotiate and reach a settlement now.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full answer. He will know of the horror felt by people in this country at the events in Kosovo. What action is being taken? How many British troops and observers are deployed and how does that compare with those of other nations?
    Mr. Robertson: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. As of 19 January, 866 OSCE verifiers were on the ground in Kosovo, of whom 110 are being provided by the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to them and to their leader General John Drewienkiewicz, who is understandably known as General DZ—I deliberately stumbled over the pronunciation so that hon. Members would understand why, Madam Speaker. All those 110, as well as the other members of the verification mission, have shown considerable courage, great skill and, in many cases, bravery, in the job that they are doing. The number of verifiers will continue to grow until it reaches a steady state at 1,500, with the United Kingdom providing 150. Additionally, we have troops in Macedonia as part of the extraction force, and Royal Air Force planes are also involved in the air surveillance operations over Kosovo.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Does not the presence of unarmed observers not only put their lives at risk in an unprecedented way, but offer both sides a hostage-taking opportunity? Does the Secretary of State think that our unarmed observers in Kosovo will have taken heart from the news that Her Majesty's Government recently begged the Yemeni Government, in a parallel situation, not to take military action against hostage takers?
    Mr. Robertson: I will not rise to the comparison with the Yemen. General DZ and others who went out to Kosovo and who have knowledge on the ground believe that it is imperative for members of the verification force to be unarmed because of their role. They are the eyes and ears of the outside world in what is a very troubled area at present. They went into Kosovo as a result of the pressure caused by the military action threatened against President Milosevic and the Serbian authorities. As part of the Holbrooke agreement, Milosevic is obliged to guarantee their safety. They are in a dangerous situation and I would not underestimate it—nor would they—but they are playing a vital role. They have saved countless thousands of lives as a simple result of being there. All
    12
    the time, President Milosevic has to recognise that Nato's actord—the activation order, which enables NATO to decide on air strikes when we choose—remains valid.
    Mr. John Smith: Given the vital role of NATO in the security situation in Kosovo, and given that the Washington summit later this year is to consider a new role and concept for the organisation on its 50th anniversary, will my right hon. Friend and the Government study that security situation to find out whether we can expand NATO's role as a peacekeeping force for policing human rights and avoiding conflict throughout the world?
    Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. For many years, NATO's role was to act as the counterbalance to the threat of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union, but it has come into its own in the modern world as a force and power for good. We must recognise that as winter came on and 250,000 Kosovar Albanians faced death through cold or starvation, it was NATO's integrated military command and planning that created the situation where those lives were saved. I know that my hon. Friend well recognises that the situation is infinitely complex. It is not susceptible to easy, glib solutions and I hope that no hon. Member would suggest that it could be. The military pressure is still on President Milosevic. The ultimate responsibility is still on him to sign up to the clear, practical and modest demands of the international community, as articulated in the Contact Group last Friday. Both sides have a responsibility to adhere to the ceasefire, but if President Milosevic signed up to the list of demands, peace could be achieved very quickly.
    Mr. John Maples: The Secretary of State told us that NATO countries are making the necessary preparations to resume the bombing campaign against Serbia. Is it true that at the Contact Group meeting or afterwards, Britain joined other European nations in vetoing United States proposals to give Milosevic a 96-hour ultimatum before commencing bombing?
    Mr. Robertson: There was no veto on any proposal put forward. The Contact Group met at officials level last Friday and put forward a series of demands in a document that has been published. The actords remain in place. That in itself is an ultimatum to President Milosevic that unless he complies with the agreement that he voluntarily reached, the actords can very quickly be made meaningful in terms of air power.
    Mr. Maples: I take it from that answer that the newspaper reports are correct that the United States proposals were not acceptable to other European countries. I want to press the Secretary of State further on Government policy, particularly on the use of ground troops. In a question to the Prime Minister last Wednesday, the Liberal Democrat leader said that if all other means of preventing Kosovo from descending into civil war fail,
    "we may … have to consider a NATO ground force in Kosovo."
    The Prime Minister replied:
    "we would certainly not rule out the possibility of participation in the use of ground forces."—[Official Report, 20 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 904.]

    13
    That clearly implies the use of ground forces in Kosovo before a peace agreement has been concluded. Is it now the policy of the Government that British ground forces might be deployed in Kosovo while Serbia and the KLA are still fighting?
    Mr. Robertson: It is a neat debating trick, but it is not fair or reasonable to say that, because I made it clear that no veto was necessary last Friday, I am admitting that there was some veto on an ultimatum. The discussions were within the Contact Group and produced a unanimous outcome. That would have involved officials of the United States of America and the Russian Federation as well as of the United Kingdom. A consensus was established. There is no suggestion of any form of ultimatum within the time span that has been put forward, but there is an ultimatum on the table. It is part and parcel of the Holbrooke agreement. The actords uniquely remain in place. We have made it clear that if President Milosevic is not willing to comply with the agreement that he came to, we can act, and we will act, if necessary, without notice.
    The hon. Gentleman quoted the Prime Minister's comments, but with an implication that he chose and that the Prime Minister did not make. If NATO is involved in considering military action, whether from the air or, subsequent to a political agreement, on the ground, Britain would of course want to be associated with any collective decision on that basis. In the meantime, the pressure must be on the two warring parties to establish a political dialogue and come to a long-term agreement, without which there will be no peace in Kosovo. We have made it absolutely clear where the burden of responsibility lies: it is on President Milosevic. If he is not willing to sign up to the Contact Group's modest, concrete, sensible proposals, he will have no one to blame but himself.

    Tomahawk
    Mr. Tony McNulty: If he will make a statement on Britain's Tomahawk land attack capability. [65531]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Following a successful trials firing, the Tomahawk land attack missile entered service with the Royal Navy last December. TLAM represents a major step forward in capability, enabling precision attacks to be undertaken at long range against selected targets, with a minimal risk to our own forces.
    Mr. McNulty: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Royal Navy on its recent display of the Tomahawk capability? Will he elaborate on how that capability fits into a post-strategic defence review defence policy framework?
    Mr. Spellar: TLAM offers a potent and credible threat to persuade an aggressor to desist from hostile activity. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Royal Navy and all those involved on having brought that capability into service in only a little more than three years.

    Global Nuclear Disarmament
    Ms Oona King: What steps the Government are taking to promote global nuclear disarmament. [65532]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): We continue to consider further ways in which to achieve progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, building on the steps we have taken in the strategic defence review. We keep closely in mind the commitment by the nuclear weapon states to work together for the success of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review process and related issues. I particularly welcome the reopening in Geneva last week of international negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons.
    Ms King: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of changes announced under the strategic defence review, Britain will not deploy any more warheads on Trident than were deployed on Polaris when it first entered service? Will he also confirm that more needs to be done urgently to promote multilateral nuclear disarmament, and state what further steps the Government are taking to achieve that end?
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her commendation of what we have done under the strategic defence review. By reducing the number of warheads per submarine to no more than under Polaris, we have taken a significant step forward, as that is a reduction of 20 per cent. in the number of warheads per submarine. In addition, we have reduced our stockpiles by one third.
    We are taking major steps forward, to such an extent that the United Nations Secretary General said that he welcomed the decisions on nuclear warheads that we took under the strategic review. He said:
    "This is an important step towards the general disarmament envisaged in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and therefore a significant strengthening of that Treaty at a time when developments elsewhere are subjecting it to considerable strain."
    I assure my hon. Friend that our commitment, together with that of many other nations, to global nuclear disarmament is real. The changes made under the strategic defence review, much of which has not received the favourable press attention in this country that it deserved, will take us a long way toward achieving that aim.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I congratulate the Secretary of State on having at last confirmed that the actual reduction in the number of warheads per submarine is 20 per cent., not 50 per cent. as has sometimes been glibly claimed in the past. Will he acknowledge that, in 1972, the world thought that it had achieved the global abolition of germ warfare and biological weapons, but that, 20 years later, President Yeltsin admitted that, in fact, the Russians had reintensified their biological warfare programmes after that treaty? In the unlikely event of the right hon. Gentleman ever managing to achieve global nuclear disarmament, will he have done anything more than make the world safe once more for all-out conventional warfare between major powers, instead of keeping nuclear weapons where they belong, in the hands of democratic powers and used to deter dictators?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has a weird sense of geopolitics if he believes that all nuclear weapons are

    15
    currently in the sort of hands that he describes. There is nothing wrong with the global objective, to which the Government are committed, of eliminating nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis. Of course, appropriate verification regimes have to be put in place to ensure that those who say that they taking action, whether in that or other areas, are doing so. That is why we have set in motion work at Aldermaston to develop United Kingdom expertise in the verification of the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. That will ensure that, when the time comes for us to enter negotiations, we shall have a national verification capability.

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

    Bishops' Stipends
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: How much account is taken, when setting bishops' stipends, of allowances paid to some bishops for attending the House of Lords. [65557]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): These payments represent reimbursement of costs incurred, so bishops' stipends are not adjusted because of them.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he acknowledge that the system has the potential to create great inequality in bishops' ultimate incomes? Does he agree that it perhaps makes sense to pool the money gained from attendance at the House of Lords and to share it out in a true Christian manner among bishops? In the light of the Government's proposals to change the make-up of the upper House, will there be some sort of review of whether to include representatives of other denominations Christian, as well as those of other faiths?
    Mr. Bell: I note my hon. Friend's views, but he will have seen and welcomed the White Paper on the future of the upper House, in which the Government state that bishops make a valuable contribution in the House because of their particular perspective and experience. The Church welcomes the Government's proposal to retain the present size of the Bishops Bench, which they accept is justified. In relation to other faiths, the Church has always insisted that it wishes to be inclusive rather than exclusive, so long as that does not touch on the established Church.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us welcome the presence of bishops in the upper House, and that it is precisely the fact that they represent areas not only within the south-east establishment but elsewhere in the United Kingdom which gives them the ability to transmit not only the views of their parishioners but frequently those of the many different professions with which they come into constant contact?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She confirms the statement in the White Paper in relation to
    16
    the bishops—that the present representation makes it possible for the Church to ensure that its perspective is represented on all occasions when it would be of particular value. One has to understand that the Church of England is a part of our community throughout the land and that it reflects the views of our people, which are then reflected in the upper House.

    Disposal of Freeholds
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps the Commissioners take to ensure that freeholds are not disposed of for less than the best available price. [65559]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners would normally offer their own property for sale on the open market. When a redundant church is sold or leased, however, financial considerations are not the overriding factor. Rather, the priority is to seek a suitable use for the church. Many different factors have to be taken into account, primarily the architectural and historical significance of the church building, and the views of parishioners, heritage bodies and other interested parties.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. My interest was triggered when I read Jimmy Hill's autobiography over Christmas. He reminded me that in the 1980s the freehold of Fulham football club was sold by the Church Commissioners for £900,000 to the then chairman of the club, Ernie Clay, who then sold it on for £7 million and is now living somewhere in Portugal. Since then, there has been a move away from property into equities. What is the Church of England's policy towards investing in UK equities, and specifically those companies that provide employment in deprived urban areas such as north-east Lancashire?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's rather wide-ranging question. While he has been reading Jimmy Hill's autobiography, I have been reading that of George Hardwick, the former captain of England and Middlesbrough player whom I see regularly at my football games—although we do not talk about Church matters when we meet in the directors' room at Middlesbrough football club.
    It has always been the Church's policy to offer its property for sale on the open market and to get the best price for it. That is a natural part of the Church's duties, and the funds are of course used to provide the wherewithal for the parish priests and their pensions and for the bishops' stipends. As for the policy on the sale of shares and the relationship between property and share investment, we have reduced our shares in property to something like 22 per cent. of our overall investment. The rest is involved in equity. The Church Commissioners always take into account their financial obligations and local constituencies and communities such as those of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Derek Foster: On behalf of the northern region, I support the interesting idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). I have not been reading autobiographies, but I have been reading the biography of Richard Nixon by

    17
    Jonathan Aitken. I do not think that the opinions of either on bishops would be highly appreciated in the Chamber at the moment.
    It would be a good idea to recycle the Church's money far more beneficially than at present to generate jobs, particularly in inner-city areas. The report "Faith in the City" and a report published during the last general election did not receive the attention that they deserved. I fully support my hon. Friend's idea, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner will support it too.
    Mr. Bell: I plead guilty to having an autographed copy of Jonathan Aitken's book about Richard Nixon. I read not only the autograph but the book.
    Mr. John Bercow: It is an excellent book.
    Mr. Bell: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is an excellent book.
    On the more serious point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) raised, the Church Commissioners have a statutory obligation relating to their investments to provide the wherewithal for the clergy, for pensions and for bishops. We are unable to go beyond that statutory obligation. However, we make it clear that the commissioners should make available land for affordable housing developments in areas such as those that my right hon. Friend has in mind. In the Octavia Hill estates in central London, we provide houses and flats at modest rents.

    Disestablishment (Financial Consequences)
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If he will make an assessment of the financial consequences of disestablishment of the Church of England. [65560]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I have already, on another occasion, answered my hon. Friend on this question.
    It would not be feasible for the Church of England or the Church Commissioners to enter into a calculation of the costs of disestablishment, since we have no instruction from the Church that the matter is being considered.
    Mr. Corbyn: Many people in this country think that it is wrong to have an established Church and that it would be helpful if England followed the example of Scotland and Wales and disestablished its Church, recognising that we are a multicultural, multi-faith society and that no religion or Church should be given pre-eminence over others. Would it not be prudent for the Church Commissioners to do their sums now so that when that democratic day dawns, it will not be such a shock for them?
    Mr. Bell: I have always looked on my hon. Friend as a traditionalist rather than a moderniser and I am sure that he agrees that it is incumbent on the Church to modernise itself. We may quote the Bible from time to time, and the
    18
    Bible tells us, "Physician, heal thyself." The Church of England has, through its parliament, passed a national institutions measure that created an Archbishops Council. That council met on 21 January against a background of fresh figures showing a 10 per cent. rise in new ordinands in the previous year. The Church does not need to be disestablished to be modem and vibrant and to play a full role in the nation's affairs.
    My hon. Friend said that this is a multi-faith, multicultural society, and that point is accepted not only by the Church of England but by the multiple faiths to which he refers.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many people think that the greatest feature of the established Church is that its services and ministrations are available to everybody, regardless of his or her belief, even the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and his constituents? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he and those in the hierarchy of the Church of England are not at all attracted by the idea of disestablishment?
    Mr. Bell: I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that it is not the intention of the Church of England, through the General Synod or another means, to initiate proceedings to bring about a disestablished Church. I have it in writing from the Prime Minister—I have often referred to this correspondence—that it is not the Government's intention to take the Church in that direction.
    For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I add that discussions have taken place at the request of Churches in England about establishment in the context of the search for visible unity among the Churches, but by no means all those present were pressing for loosening the Church of England's ties with the Crown and state. We do not for a moment believe that the established Church is outmoded in the multicultural, multi-faith Britain to which I have referred.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I urge the hon. Gentleman to be less conservative. There is no better time to think of disestablishing the Church than when we are devolving power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and considering the reform of the second Chamber. Even if the Church is not yet persuaded of the merits of disestablishment, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Church Commissioners at least to give us the information to allow the House to debate whether disestablishment would be good not only for the Church, as I believe it would, but for people of all faiths and of none throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Bell: That may be a party political broadcast for a future leader of the Liberal party. It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats feel that disestablishment is in our interests. In a future joint Labour-Liberal manifesto, those who believe in an established Church will have to take that into account. Whether we have a debate on the subject is a matter for the usual channels. I invite the hon. Gentleman to take that route, and would be very happy to participate in such a debate.

Iraq
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is always very difficult for you when something appears on the tapes after your 12 o'clock meeting, but there is a statement on the tapes after 3 o'clock that there has indeed been a missile attack on the Shia and ancient city of Basra and that there have been casualties. Those who have worked in Basra, as I did in 1994, or have visited it know that it is basically an ancient, beautiful and residential city. It so happens that you have given me tonight's Adjournment debate, which is on sanctions on Iraq. Would that be a suitable moment for a statement of explanation of why we are still raining down these missiles which, whatever their destination, always seem to land up killing women and children? It is not the purpose of a Labour Government to do that.
Madam Speaker: Neither is that much of a point of order. I thought that, in answering Question 1 in Defence questions, the Secretary of State for Defence gave the House a good deal of information in relation to the situation in the Gulf. I thought that I was very fair in whom I called to ask the Secretary of State supplementary questions. In addition, I have noticed that the hon. Gentleman has been very, very successful in the ballot for Adjournment debates over the past few months, and that he has one again tonight which, as he says, is on sanctions on Iraq. It would not be wise for him to try to extend that subject.

Orders of the Day

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill falls into two quite separate parts. Both apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. The first, in clause 1, is the issue of the age of consent for male homosexuals. That is a subject on which we all have our own personal views. As on previous occasions, it will be subject to a free vote. I will be voting in favour of equalising the age for male homosexuals with that of heterosexuals at 16. That is because I believe in equality before the law.
  The second, separate, issue is abuse of trust. That arises from widely shared concerns about the need to protect vulnerable young people. We are dealing with the matter in this Bill because of the very strong views about the vulnerability of 16 and 17-year-olds of both sexes expressed during debates on equalising the age of consent held in the House and another place last summer. Proposals to change the age of consent brought that concern to the surface. We decided, therefore, that it was only right to deal with it when we brought the issue of age of consent before this House for a second time. I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House for the tenacious and constructive way in which they raised the issue.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend speaks of equality before the law; but cannot the principle of equality often give way to broader public interest considerations, such as the protection of younger people? Given the widespread concern about older men luring younger men into a life style that is not their own, will my right hon. Friend explain why he did not include safeguards in the relevant clause of the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and why the safeguards are now so limited—excluding, for example, vicars and boy scout leaders? Why is he being so timid and so limited on that subject? Given the importance of the protection issue, why did he not consider it earlier?
  Mr. Straw: In response to my hon. Friend's second point about not considering it earlier, I must say that we are damned if we consider everything in advance and then serve things up to this Chamber; we are also, apparently, now damned if we listen to debates and seek to respond to them. I plead guilty to the second charge.
  I accept that what is before the House, with what I regard as extensive revisions on the abuse of trust, is an advance on what was before the House in summer 1998. We brought it before the House because of concerns expressed in the House and in the other place. As for whether it is extensive, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would listen to my explanation, and I shall give way again if he asks me to. He also has every opportunity to make a speech in his own way.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: To save the House a great deal of time in later debates and

  21
  help the motion to be effective, will the Secretary of State let us know now whether it is true or not true that, since the Sutherland decision of the European Court in 1994, there have been no prosecutions for consenting homosexual activity and a limited number of prosecutions involving assault or rape? Whatever happens, could we not save a great deal of time by not bothering to debate all this, as we often do in the House, when decisions have already been taken by European courts on our behalf?
  Mr. Straw: Hon. Members on each side of the Chamber will have different points of view. In 1997, there were four cautions, one prosecution and no convictions of males aged 16 and 17 for gross indecency; and five cautions, four prosecutions and two convictions of 16 and 17-year-old males for buggery. There were two cautions, nine prosecutions and seven convictions of those aged 18 and over for buggery with 16 or 17-year-olds.
  I shall now deal with the issue of the European Court of Human Rights. Its concern is about equality before the law. Of course it would be open to the House, notwithstanding that court's approach, to set a different age, which could be 17 or 18, or which could be as low as 12—although I am not for a moment recommending that—the age which applies in some European countries.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentlemen, but I should be grateful if they would allow me to make a few remarks first.
  The second issue raised in the Bill is the abuse of trust. I have already made it clear that that arises from the widespread concerns that were expressed last year. Let me also make it clear that clause 1 will be committed to a Committee of the whole House, so that all hon. Members may have an opportunity to vote specifically on the age of consent, and to bring any specific propositions before the House. The remainder of the Bill will be examined upstairs in Committee and then, subject to the decisions taken upstairs, will have a Report stage in the Chamber.
  Mr. Robathan: I especially want to home in on the abuse of trust measures that the Home Secretary mentioned, which I support. The last time the issue was considered by the House—brought before us by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—there was a free vote, and the abuse of trust clause was defeated. What will happen this time? Will there be another free vote? I assume that, if not, it is likely to be defeated by Labour Members.
  Mr. Straw: I have explained that it is a free vote as far as we are concerned; I cannot speak for Conservative Whips.
  Mr. Bercow: The Home Secretary mentioned the experience of European Union countries. Given that he will obviously have taken a view on the subject, not simply on the strength of abstract principle but on the basis of an assessment of consequences, will he tell the
  22
  House what assessment he has made of the impact of equalisation of ages of consent—which, it must be said, is commonplace in other European Union countries?
  Mr. Straw: As I told the House a moment ago, the age of consent varies greatly from one European country to another. I shall give the House the details, if I can turn up the relevant table, which I read with great care yesterday. The age of consent ranges from 12 in Spain to 18 in Luxembourg, I think. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will correct that, if necessary.
  I have seen no evidence that an equal age of consent has caused problems in any of those countries, but it must be said that the age that has been established, which ranges over that wide span of six years, often reflects considerable differences in history and family traditions. In those other European countries, there are other norms, which ensure that the kinds of conduct about which people would be extremely anxious do not, on the whole, take place. It must also said that where the age of consent is lower than 16, there are often powerful offences in respect of those, say, over 18 who seek to have sexual intercourse with those under the age of 16.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: The House is listening carefully to my right hon. Friend's description of what happens in other European countries in relation to the age of consent. Does he recall the letter that he wrote to me over the summer in which he gave a firm and clear statement of Government policy—that there would be no reduction in the age of consent to 14 for homosexual acts in our country, that no legalisation of homosexual marriages would be proposed by the Government, and that there would be no legal adoption of children by homosexual couples?
  Mr. Straw: I can give my hon. Friend the undertakings that he seeks in respect of each of those propositions. We have no plans whatever to introduce legislation in respect of any of them.
  I should now like to make progress. I shall deal first with the age of consent. I do not want to spend too long on the background to that, as it is well known to all of us, but I should remind the House briefly of a few key points.
  Most important, perhaps, is the history of the previous votes and where those left us in this House. As hon. Members will recall, an amendment was moved to the Crime and Disorder Bill last Session to equalise the age of consent at 16. On a free vote last June, the House agreed that proposal by a majority of 336 votes to 129. In supporting the proposal, the Government accepted the need to look carefully, and as a matter of priority, at the protection of vulnerable 16 and 17-year-old girls and boys. However, for the vast majority of the House, that did not detract from our firm belief that we should no longer accept the inequity represented by a differing age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals.
  As hon. Members know, a different view was taken in another place. Now is not the time to debate the rights and wrongs of such a decision against the clear view of principle expressed in this House. That is past history for this Bill, and the constitutional relationship between the two Houses can no doubt be debated in considerable depth on future occasions. The need to secure the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill, which implemented a number of

  23
  our manifesto promises, meant that we had no option but to abandon the proposals in that Bill and bring them forward again this Session in a separate Bill.
  That brings us to where we are today. The proposals on the age of consent are the same as those discussed last summer. They would reduce the age of consent to 16 for male homosexuals in England, Wales and Scotland, and to 17 in Northern Ireland, equalising it in each part of the Union with the relevant heterosexual age of consent that applies in that part of the Union.
  As we made clear last Session, this is not a question of encouraging one life style as against another, or of encouraging young people to have sex—far from it. Instead, it is a question of equality before the law. For a large number of young people of 16 or 17, it may well be the case that they are too young to enter into a significant sexual relationship, and nothing in the Bill should be seen as an encouragement for them to do so; but many young people of that age do enter into such relationships, and where they do so on a fully consenting basis, in my personal view it is not right for the law to discriminate against those who are homosexual, although of course I respect those who take a different view.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to use the term "life style" is erroneous in this case because it involves or assumes an element of choice? All the experts agree that the vast majority of people's sexual orientation does not have that element of choice, so we should stop even talking about life styles.
  Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that he has noticed that I have not used that term.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is it not proper for the law to have the effect of restraining activity which the majority of people regard as undesirable or unnatural? However choice may operate, the fact remains that people have the choice to maintain self-discipline.
  Mr. Straw: I shall try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. Those issues were raised extensively in the consideration of the Wolfenden report in 1957. It will be recalled that, before then, homosexual acts at any age were illegal, and buggery attracted a penalty of life imprisonment. There is no evidence that that led to fewer people engaged in homosexual acts if they were determined to be engaged in them, but it led to huge human unhappiness and great injustice. In 1967, the House and the country accepted that the law should be changed for those over the age of 21. Much more recently, in 1994, we accepted that the age of consent should be lowered to 18. I have always believed that the age should be equalised at 16, which is the age of consent for heterosexual sex.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Straw: I have already taken several interventions and should like to make progress.
  The second key point is that of discrimination, which relates directly to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Many hon.
  24
  Members will be aware of the current case concerning Euan Sutherland, and the parallel case of Christopher Morris, both now before the European Court of Human Rights. Two years ago, the European Commission of Human Rights decided against the United Kingdom and in favour of the applicants. We reached an agreement with the applicants that we would give the House the opportunity to vote on this issue, and the court case was stayed pending the outcome. However, it cannot be delayed indefinitely, and the court will not permit it. Moreover, given the strong support that the House gave the measure last time round, it would not be right to wait. This is an area where our law is clearly open to challenge, and that must be rectified—[Interruption]—not necessarily, may I say to those who take a different view from mine, by lowering the age of consent to 16, but definitely by changing it to an equal age.
  Let me now deal with abuse of trust. During the debate in the previous Session, many hon. Members expressed concern about vulnerable young people of 16 or 17—of both sexes—who might be induced into sexual relationships which they do not really want, for fear or favour of those in positions of trust over them. I stress again that that concern is not limited to protecting young boys. Girls of that age are equally, if not more, vulnerable and deserve equal protection. Protection is needed against all who might abuse their position of trust, whatever their sexuality.
  The criminal law is already adequate to deal with all non-consensual sexual activity, including that with children under the age of consent. That does not mean that terrible abuses do not occur. We have all been horrified at the catalogue of abuse, both physical and sexual, which has been uncovered in recent years at children's homes and other establishments. Some of it is still coming to light. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently announced a series of reforms to prevent such abuse from occurring again. It includes the "Quality Protects" initiative and the measures announced in response to the "Children's Safeguards" review. In addition, we are changing the criminal law to make it simpler and less traumatic for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, including children, to give evidence in court. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill currently being considered in another place contains measures to help such witnesses give their best evidence to the courts.
  There remains the important issue of abuse of trust, which falls outside the area of the law of sexual abuse as such. An abuse of trust can occur when someone in a position of authority uses his or her influence or power, either deliberately or unintentionally, to enter into an ostensibly consensual sexual relationship with someone over whom he or she is in a position of authority. The type of behaviour can range from a genuine relationship to one that approaches sexual abuse.
  It has long been accepted in the professions that such a relationship—even if genuine—is unacceptable, be it a teacher with a pupil or a doctor with a patient. Harsh disciplinary sanctions usually follow. Even if innocent, such behaviour fundamentally breaches the position of trust between the individuals concerned.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall choose my words carefully, because I am dealing with a case that is sub judice. Will my right hon. Friend,

  25
  and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, consider giving stronger guidance to school governing bodies about their role in this question of trust?
  Mr. Straw: We will indeed. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to the proposals for codes of practice to reinforce the specific provisions in the Bill.
  Following the debates in the summer, we asked an interdepartmental working group to look, as a matter of priority, at whether, in the light of the concerns that had been voiced, the disciplinary approach was sufficient or whether criminal sanctions should be introduced. The working group reported on that in the autumn, and I placed a copy of its report in the Library of the House on 25 November. The report forms the basis for the proposals in the second part of the Bill.
  The working group conducted a consultation exercise over the summer, and a summary of the responses is attached to its report. The majority of respondents thought that the disciplinary route was the right one. That was influential in shaping the group's conclusions. In particular, the group recommended against any general offence of abuse of trust. It considered, however, that where the relationship of trust was particularly strong, or where the younger party was particularly vulnerable, there was a case for a criminal offence.
  That, however, is only part of the action to be taken. The working group also concluded that there was a general need to strengthen codes of conduct throughout all areas where relationships of trust existed, particularly within the large number of organisations in the voluntary sector. That is as important as the proposed new criminal offence. With that in mind, the group started work on this area with a seminar involving outside organisations on 30 November.
  I hope that we will have the first working draft of model principles for the construction of such codes ready to make available to Members in time for when the Bill is in Committee upstairs, on the assumption that the House will tonight vote to give it a Second Reading. That is an important issue. All organisations will have to consider carefully the various positions of trust falling within their scope and how to take effective action against any abuse of trust.
  Codes will also be needed, if they do not already exist, for areas covered by the proposed criminal offence, which I shall come to in a moment, but those codes will, of course, be in addition to the criminal sanctions.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The difficulty with relying on codes of conduct and on the sort of disciplinary measures that my right hon. Friend is discussing is that, by their very nature, such relationships will be kept secret. Unless there is protection for those who bring information to the attention of the people in charge, and unless there is also some easy way in which that information can be genuinely verified, a code of conduct will have no impact whatever. It will simply not be worth the paper it is written on.
  Mr. Straw: We are also proposing clear criminal sanctions, in clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill. The codes are not alternative, in every case, to criminal sanctions; they are supplementary and complementary to them. The Bill
  26
  is our best effort at the moment, but, as ever, we are open to suggestions for improving the provision. I hope that they will be forthcoming in today's debate and when that part of the Bill is examined in Committee.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I approve of the Home Secretary's way of moving forward on this issue. A mixture of legislation and codes of practice is necessary in the area of betrayal or abuse of trust.
  With the same inhibitions as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) expressed, I put it to the Home Secretary—this is not for answer today, but may be fed in—that it is not always possible to produce enough evidence for the Crown Prosecution Service to undertake a criminal prosecution when people are suspected of misbehaving. Whether in respect of a teacher, or someone who works for a voluntary organisation or a Church, it might be worth consulting on some way of setting up a register, so that people could say, in all honesty, "We believe that somebody has been suspected of something, but there is no proof."
  If that happened two or three times to the same person in different areas, we would avoid, for example, the present scandal of teachers getting references when people are trying to get them out of their school and into a new school and—where a charge eventually results—the social inquiry reports not looking back to find out what happened in the other four or five schools where such a person may have abused children.
  Mr. Straw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. There is an ever-present challenge to ensure that enough evidence is available to the Crown Prosecution Service to secure a conviction, given the heavy burden of proof that exists in our criminal courts. We are trying to make it easier for witnesses to come forward, and to gain protection under the provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place. That said, I am sure that there will still be a number of cases in which the evidence is clear, but, for a variety of reasons, is not sufficient to secure a conviction in the criminal courts.
  That, however, should not prevent those who exercise authority over the individual who is causing a breach of trust from disciplining that person. A responsibility is therefore placed on, for example, leaders of the scout movement and school governors. It is a responsibility which they must undertake: after all, there is a different and smaller burden of proof in their disciplinary processes, whether or not a prosecution is undertaken and is successful.
  As for the question of records and registers, the Department for Education and Employment already has what it calls List 99, which contains details not only of people who are convicted of offences, but of others against whom school governing bodies, for example, have clear evidence. A similar list is run by the Department of Health in respect of those involved in social work with

  27
  children, and there are also the provisions for criminal records which we shall co-ordinate as a one-stop shop in the Criminal Records Bureau.
  Ms Helen Southworth: Will my right hon. Friend consider the special concerns of young people with learning and other disabilities who give evidence and act as witnesses?
  Mr. Straw: Yes. We have taken steps to deal with that issue, which is partly covered in the Bill that is currently in another place.
  Mr. David Borrow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall continue with my explanation of the Bill, but I will take interventions before I sit down.
  As I have said, the working group concluded that a new offence was needed in circumstances in which the relationship of trust was particularly strong, or the younger party was likely to be particularly vulnerable. That relates directly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth). There are four main groups to be covered. As well as the—as usual—excellent detailed brief from the Library, we have provided detailed explanatory notes with the Bill, which, inevitably, set out the circumstances that we seek to cover in clearer language than the Bill itself.
  First, there are young people who are held in any form of detention. They may be personally very vulnerable to undue influence, persuasion or manipulation; in addition, they have no way out of their situation, and may be frightened and friendless. Secondly, there are those who are looked after by a local authority, in a children's home, in foster care or in semi-independent accommodation. Those young people too may be vulnerable and isolated.
  The third category consists of those who are resident in an institution providing health or social care: a hospital, a children's home, a nursing home or another form of residential care. Again, such young people may be very vulnerable; again, it is difficult for them to walk away from the situation. Abuse of such a position of trust should not be tolerated, and should be subject to the criminal law.
  Finally, there is the area of full-time education. It is a broad category, but education epitomises what many see as the essence of the relationship of trust. Teachers are in loco parentis even when pupils are 16 or 17. That is the first reason for including full-time education as a whole. The second reason is the practical difficulty of creating separate groups within the category. Children at boarding school, like those in residential care or detention, cannot easily walk away from the situation. Because of their position, they are likely—as with the other young people whom I have mentioned—to be particularly vulnerable to undue influence.
  Some children, such as those with learning difficulties, may be even more vulnerable, although they are at day schools; but I feel that it would be wholly invidious for some members of a class to be protected by the criminal law from abuse of trust, and others not to be so protected.
  28
  That would be the position if we attempted a narrower definition, as classes may be of mixed ability, and many schools comprise both boarding and day pupils.
  I appreciate that, just as there are some who think that the scope of the new offence is too narrow, there are others who think it too wide. Others think that areas such as residential holiday camps, scouts and guides should also be covered. Drawing the line is not easy. Of course, we are open to the views of the House and to suggestions for improvement, but we think—we do not know; we think—that we may have it right.
  The principles of particular vulnerability for the individual, coupled with a particularly strong position of trust, seem to us to be the right criteria. They leave clearly defined categories of occupation where the law will apply and ensure that those covered by it will know—it is an important point—that they fall within its scope. Those outside that scope will also be covered by codes of conduct, but a more flexible approach in respect of them may be possible.
  I said at the outset that there were a number of other important developments that I wanted to touch on. Those are relevant both to what is in the Bill and to what is not.
  Last July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the then Minister of State, announced our intention to review the law on sexual offences in England and Wales. The present law is archaic and riddled with inconsistencies and inequalities. It has grown as a patchwork of provisions, reflecting the values and policies of previous generations, when, for example, the relative positions of men and women in society was very different. It is time that we took a hard look at the law to decide how it should meet the needs of the new century.
  Mr. Borrow: On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the existing legislation is that it criminalises young males below the age of consent, whereas all the other age-of-consent legislation seeks to protect young people under the age of consent, rather than criminalise them? The age-of-consent legislation, as it is now and as it will be after the Bill is passed, will still leave young gay males under the age of consent as potential criminals, which will discourage them from whistle-blowing if they are approached by older males, which seems to be a fear among many hon. Members.
  Mr. Straw: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is a complex area of law. I hope that he will feel able to put in representations to the review, so that they can be considered in proper time.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Although the Home Secretary's proposals to deal with abuse of trust are welcome—indeed, 1 supported the amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—does he not understand that the message that he and those who will vote for the measure today are sending to the country is totally at variance with the message that the Government wish to give about the importance of the family?
  Does the Home Secretary not understand that he simply cannot have it both ways? I know that the Government are keen to do that, but it is clear that the message that will go out from the House tonight if it votes for the

  29
  measure—it is opposed by 70 per cent. of the population, so the House will be out of kilter with the public—is at variance with the Government's proclaimed support for the family, which the measure seeks to undermine.
  Mr. Straw: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion. I respect it, but I do not agree with it. I do not believe that anything in the proposition that I support and which, I think, many hon. Members on both sides of the House support—an equal age of consent at 16—is antithetical to the Government's view. That view is by no means a partisan view, and it is that, without preaching about the nature of adults' personal relationships, we should take action better to support families, especially families with children.
  We can have a debate about that on another occasion, but I have to give the same answer to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) as I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). The criminal law, when it was imposed with all its severity before 1967, did not prevent or stop homosexual acts taking place between people of any age; I know that for certain. It did discriminate against people who were of a homosexual nature, rather than a heterosexual nature, and caused untold, unnecessary and gratuitous misery to those people and, in many cases, their families as well.
  Mr. Julian Brazier rose—
  Mr. Straw: With great respect, I have taken a large number of interventions and I should like to proceed.
  The review that we have established will focus particularly on providing further protection for children and punishing abusers appropriately. It will look at a full range of sex offences from rape and indecent assault to indecent exposure, gross indecency, procuring and abduction. Many of the offences currently on the statute book are deeply anachronistic. I do not think that we would now consider it right that the offence of causing or encouraging prostitution of a girl under 16 can be committed only by parents and that the law cannot be used against pimps. Neither do we want to have offences that require the victim to be proved a "defective". Those are just two of the many examples of how the law is archaic.
  The Sex Offenders Act 1997 is also under review. It is a recent Act, but we started a research project into its effectiveness last autumn. It is due to be completed later this year. We shall be looking carefully at the Act in the light of the study. The review will cover the list of offences and whether there should be any judicial discretion in imposing the registration requirement, particularly for juveniles. The inclusion of the new offence of abuse of trust in the list means that it will also be covered in the review.
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the report of the interdepartmental working group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children and abuse of trust. The Government welcome the report as the basis for an integrated scheme to provide greater protection for children and, in due course, vulnerable adults. Primary legislation will be required to put the new schemes in place.
  Dr. Evan Harris rose—
  Mr. Straw: I am almost at the end of my speech. Many hon. Members on both sides want to speak.
  30
  The integrated scheme envisages a central access point for three sources of information, including criminal records and List 99, which I mentioned earlier to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). The Protection of Children Bill currently before Parliament makes provision for the Criminal Records Bureau to be the central access point for the scheme.
  The Government have embarked on a major programme to prevent sexual abuse in the home and elsewhere and to put in place safeguards and a new culture of protection of children through all areas of child care and social services. We have discussed that at length on other occasions, in particular in the context of the Government's response to the children's safeguards review.
  Those are the major planks of our programme of reform; that is the context of the Bill. I believe that it is a good measure which balances the need to ensure that young people are adequately protected with the right that all citizens should have to equality before the law. I commend it to the House.
  4.8 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: This is the second time that we have debated the issue and the second time I have spoken, so my speech will be brief.
  I welcome two aspects of the Bill. First, it starts as a Bill. Part of my criticism last time that we debated the issues was that the relevant amendment was introduced very late, preventing the House from giving it thorough scrutiny. The measure was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Now we shall be able to give proper scrutiny in Committee to all aspects of what is being proposed.
  Secondly, I welcome the steps taken to recognise that children in care and under supervision need protection. Many of us have argued for that. We shall have to examine the adequacy of the protection offered. I sympathise with the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). We shall need to consider issues such as the maximum sentence, but the measure is right in principle. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), whose amendment brought the issue up originally.
  Against that background, the question is whether the age of consent should be reduced to 16. For the Opposition, there will be a free vote on the Bill. I shall try to review some of the evidence, but I shall put forward my personal views.
  In 1994, I voted for the age of consent to be reduced from 21 to 18. Eighteen is the age of majority, and it seemed to me sensible that young men should make up their own minds at that age. I do not go back on that judgment. There are some who think that that went too far, but I agreed with the Bishop of York, who said at the time that it was a sensible step and allowed the evidence to be assessed.
  In coming to the subject, I am strongly and personally influenced by the campaign on AIDS that I conducted at the end of 1986 and the beginning of 1987. AIDS is not an exclusively homosexual issue, although some argue even now, wrongly, that it is. Equally, however, it is clear that it disproportionately affects the gay community. During that campaign and afterwards—when I was a member of the council of the National Aids Trust—I met

  31
  representatives of the gay community regularly and frequently. I do not wish to be patronising in my praise, but I hope at any rate that I can be acquitted of being hostile to the gay community.
  During the AIDS campaign, I learnt two major lessons. It was a unique campaign, inasmuch as we sought to involve all the public and to rely on the public. I do not believe that anything like it has been attempted in the post-war years. The first lesson that I learnt was about what the public expected of Ministers and Governments. I remember that I was urged to lead what was called a moral campaign—in other words, rather than concentrating on practical health education, I was urged to provide a moral message on what was "right" and "wrong". Frankly, I was sceptical of that advice.
  I did not advocate a promiscuous life style, but equally I did not believe that the public necessarily regarded Ministers or, dare I say, Members of Parliament, as the automatic role models or moral guardians of the nation. I must admit that some of the things that have happened since 1986–87 have confirmed me in that view. Whether it is back to basics or the third way, a well-meaning message is subject to the slight problem that it can be spectacularly blown out of the water at any stage. My view was that the public wanted sensible advice rather than lectures.
  Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to extend his analogy a little further, the House of Commons should not have a debate on economic policy?
  Sir Norman Fowler: The point I am seeking to make is that we should proceed with a certain amount of humility on moral issues. I suggest that that is not a bad lesson for any of us, however strongly we may feel about the issues. I add that the history of this century has shown that it is better for the Government and Ministers to give practical advice, rather than seek to put over a moral message without the practical advice. During the 1914–18 war, the advice to "think of King and country" in terms of sexual habits proved to be spectacularly unsuccessful.
  That brings me to the second lesson that I took from the AIDS campaign. We were posting leaflets to every house and every home in Britain, so we agonised about the message—how explicit should it be, and what language should be used? I have been criticised or taken off in the press for other messages, most of which are now in folklore. It is totally untrue, but there is nothing I can do about denying it. One of my earliest advertisements was challenged by a senior Minister on the ground that the words "having sex" were not the kind of language that we should use; so we had some difficulty in getting the message across.
  The public response to our leaflets was emphatic: there were next to no complaints, and we were criticised neither for the directness of the message nor for the fact that we could have been perceived as protecting the gay community. The British public took a mature and sensible attitude: they thought that we were right to warn and, by implication, they thought it wrong to leave people to their own fate as, tragically, some countries did.
  That was significant, because I contend that, just as the public are sensible and mature in their attitude to an issue such as AIDS, they show equal common sense today on
  32
  the age of consent. The Home Secretary is entirely right to say that the public do not want men in their 20s and 30s—let alone in their 40s and 50s—to be prosecuted for consensual sex. They regard that as a matter for personal judgment, not for the criminal law.
  The public's concern comes when the age for consent comes nearer and nearer to what they regard as childhood. In 1994, a Gallup poll suggested that 71 per cent. supported the status quo for the age of consent at 21. Interestingly, when NOP divided the question and gave a choice between 18 and 16, the majority—48 per cent. as against 44 per cent.—favoured 18; but, significantly for this debate, only 13 per cent. favoured 16.
  That opposition to going this further stage, from 18—which we introduced only in 1994—to 16, has remained in the opinion polls. At the end of 1997, one poll showed 53 per cent. opposed to lowering the age of consent and 35 per cent. in favour. Perhaps the most interesting of the later polls was the Gallup poll last August, which was taken after the House had voted to lower the age of consent to 16 and the House of Lords had voted the other way. When the public were asked whether they personally thought that the age of consent for homosexual men should be 16 or 18, 26 per cent. said 16 and 65 per cent. said 18.
  I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that public opinion is unreasonable on the age of consent or that those surveys show an inherent prejudice against the gay community. Many of the public who are polled are parents and are concerned about the impact that a change in the law could have on 16 and 17-year-olds.
  The House would do well to take note of the public view. If I am right, and two thirds of the country are against lowering the age of consent, we should take note of that and consider some of the reasons that are advanced. Some, like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), will argue, as he did in our previous debate on the subject, that there is a particular need in our culture to support young people. He said:
  "Pressures are at work to legitimise any and every life style, irrespective of any difference of value and quality between them. The Church believes that those pressures should be resisted."—[Official Report, 22 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 795.]
  Others will agree with the Lord Bishop of Winchester, who spoke for many other religious leaders when he warned against undermining the position of marriage in our society. Above all, my view is that the public generally feel that we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to prevent young people from being affected by harm or abuse. Indeed, the Government have obviously accepted that principle, as it is the reason for the second part of the Bill. We can debate whether the protection is adequate, but the Government have accepted the principle of seeking to protect.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: On the question of protection, does my right hon. Friend agree that the present law is very successful in deterring homosexually inclined and active 16 and 17-year-olds from obtaining medical and moral advice?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I do not agree with that. My experience with the AIDS campaign was that we were able to succeed in making advice available to people using drugs and to the great many more who were committing

  33
  criminal offences. Although I know my right hon. Friend's views and respect them, I do not think that his argument is valid. Even if it were, it would have to be balanced against the greater public good.
  Mr. Bercow: The opinion poll evidence invoked by my right hon. Friend is important. The House should listen to it, but not be slavishly bound by it. My right hon. Friend said that he would offer us his personal view: will he say to what adverse consequences he fears that equalisation at the age of 16 would lead?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall come to that point in the second part of my remarks. However, I question what my hon. Friend says about public opinion. I think that we should listen to it, as it is important to take public opinion on this matter into account.
  Mr. Bercow: I said that we should not be slavish in our response to it.
  Sir Norman Fowler: What that normally means is, "I'll listen to it, and then I'll ignore it." I think that public opinion on this matter is so pronounced that the House would be well advised to listen to what is being said.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman told the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) that he did not believe that young people of 16 would be disinclined to seek medical advice. If he were shown to be wrong about that, would he change his mind?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I would not so much change my mind as try to change the response of young people. If they were shown to be disinclined to seek such advice, that would be a problem which we should examine and try to resolve. However, whether that amounts to an argument for going as far as reducing the age of consent for everyone to 16 is another question.
  I believe that, in respect of the Bill, many people will feel that many more children than those under supervision are in danger and at risk. Will reducing the age of consent make their position more perilous and increase the risk that they face? That is the question which the House must consider. In making that judgment, we must assess the size of the threat.
  It is obviously extremely difficult to evaluate the risk of sexual abuse, but an indication of the scale of the problem can be found in the study edited by Donald West of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology. That study drew attention to one piece of research, in which it was found that 12 per cent. of women and 8 per cent. of men reported that they had been sexually abused as children. If accurate, that research means that we are talking about several million adults who have been sexually abused.
  Even those who contest those figures would not deny that sexual abuse poses a massive threat. It is not surprising that many parents are worried about what is an inherent fear for them, nor that they feel that the problem could or would be made worse by lowering the age of consent. In that connection, it is worth recalling the words of Sir William Utting, who was quoted in our previous debate and whose advice lay behind the amendment
  34
  tabled then by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. In his 1997 Department of Health report, Sir William said of sexual offenders:
  "Persistent sexual abusers are a scourge of childhood. Their numbers are difficult to estimate but each one who adopts a lifetime career will amass hundreds of victims. They inflict unspeakable psychological and physical harm. Some of their victims will become abusers. Their success depends on their ability to ingratiate themselves with adults and children … They establish themselves as trusted friends, colleagues or employees. Exposure may be a matter of chance, often after many years of abuse."
  Mr. Borrow: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman's points about child abuse relate to abuse under the age of 16. He argues that a reduction in the age of consent for gay men from 18 to 16 would increase the risk of such abuse. If that is the case, given the figures that he gave, which show that, nationally, more women than men have been abused as children, does he advocate that the age of consent for heterosexual men and women should be increased from 16 to give them more protection from child abuse?
  Sir Norman Fowler: No, I do not. That is an issue, but I am arguing that the position should not be made worse. I heard the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention and he seemed to be arguing for changes that go beyond the Bill—far beyond it. It is all very well arguing such a case, but I am arguing that the position should not be made worse, nor the risk greater. It is a matter of judgment for the House and for the hon. Gentleman—whom I suspect does not exactly share my view on the subject—how seriously one estimates that risk. I happen to consider it serious. I was Secretary of State for Social Services for six years, so I recognise the problem. I feel that it is a serious risk and a serious issue, but I am speaking personally.
  Yvette Cooper rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will continue for the moment.
  Bill Utting' s report was about children living away from home, but his description of the threat has a wider application. We must remember that those who have been found guilty of sexual abuse have usually had a long career as abusers. As the Home Secretary may remember, in our previous debate on the subject I gave the example of the self-styled Bishop Gleaves. He may remember it because I also raised the issue in 1975 when I was last at the shadow Dispatch Box to speak on home affairs and he was adviser to the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  Bishop Gleaves was convicted of offences against young people in the 1970s. I raised his case in 1975 and he was convicted last year of further offences and sentenced to 15 years in prison. My point is that he is a lifetime offender, like so many others. It is worth remembering that that is the context of this legislation.
  I heard what the Home Secretary said and I certainly agree with him about reviewing the law. However, it is not merely a question of reviewing the law, but of reviewing the adequacy of the treatment of such offenders once they have been sentenced. We need to take into account our lack of success and, at times, the inadequacy of our efforts to change people's habits once they go into prison. The issue does not end at the sentence; in a sense, it begins after sentencing. Too often, we have no realistic

  35
  hope of sexual offenders changing their ways after they come out of prison. All too often, those hopes fail to be realised, as in the case of Bishop Gleaves.
  Mr. Straw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the twin need to ensure that the offences are in order and that there is better punishment, detention and treatment of offenders. For that reason, as he may know, we are working actively on proposals, which I shall bring before the House shortly, for dealing better with offenders with dangerous personality disorders.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will bring the proposals before us shortly because it is a fundamental issue. While we repeatedly debate changes in the law, little appears to happen, which negates all our law-making efforts.
  I understand and respect the arguments of those who say that the age of consent should be lowered to 16 and that it is a matter of rights for young people. I hope that such people will recognise that it is not a question only of rights but of responsibilities, and in particular of the responsibility that we owe young people not to worsen their position in respect of the risk of abuse. No one can doubt public concern on the issue; nor should we attempt to do so. I believe that the majority of the public would prefer this change not to be made. We should listen to the public and not move to reduce further the age of consent.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. Joe Ashton: I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for introducing this Bill, which I welcome and support. He and the Minister of State have done a magnificent job in listening to Back Benchers and the mood of the House, which was perhaps misunderstood last June. It was the end of the Session and we were trying to do too much, too soon. Now that we have had a another look at the matter, I am sure that the Bill will get a massive majority tonight.
  That is a commonsense issue. The matter has been going on for a couple of years or more. As I had to remind Baroness Young on a television programme today, the European Court of Human Rights said that equality between men and women in respect of gay rights legislation was essential and that it would enforce it if the British Government did not introduce legislation. That seems to have been forgotten.
  There was never really an anti-gay row about the matter. I voted willingly for the measure that was tacked on to the Crime and Disorder Bill last June. However, the House and Back Benchers resent it when they think that a Committee has not had a chance to study an issue, table amendments and let things take their proper course through the House. A lot of friction lingered after the age of consent was reduced to 18 under Edwina Currie's proposal. There was a three-hour debate without time to examine the issues at leisure. I welcome what the Home Secretary has done.
  The Home Secretary will remember that the consent measure had a majority of 207 last June. When the question on my amendment was put, the majority fell to 40. Sad to say, the free vote was taken off. If it had been on, the amendment would have been carried and there
  36
  would have been even more chaos and mishaps in the Lords. When the measure has been carefully considered in Committee, there will be no reason for the House of Lords to reject it, although one or two may try it on. Many Labour Lords who voted then—a lot of colleagues my age and old trade unionists—were unhappy about what was being done. If the measure goes through as a separate Bill including my amendments, there will be much less resistance in the Lords. I hope that the Lords will also realise that, if it is not passed by Parliament, the European Court will say that we are out of order and impose it one way or another.
  I am happy to say that it all started with a written question, which I tabled, about equality in other countries, to which I shall return later. The idea of a position of authority, influence or trust seems to have been reduced in the Bill to trust alone. I will come to that also.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldsfield (Sir N. Fowler) has outlined the extent of the problem and I do not want us to repeat the debate that we had last June. The Utting report told us that 200,000 children under the age of 18 were living in children's homes, foster care and boarding schools, with 1,700 in Prison Service establishments, 110,000 in boarding schools and 35,000 in foster care.
  After public uproar, Esther Rantzen set up a child abuse helpline which thousands of kids called because they had no one to turn to. However, many children could not even afford the cost of the call, until the BBC fixed up a free phone line. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when he was still Prime Minister, set up the Utting inquiry, but, unfortunately, it reported just after the general election when everything was in turmoil and the media were preoccupied with the post-election euphoria. The report never received the analysis it merited—indeed, it was not even debated in Parliament until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a statement on the subject.
  Parliament was in danger of allowing a major social cause of public concern to go unanswered. I felt like people must have felt in the days of "Oliver Twist" or Dr. Barnardo: here we were debating every subject under the sun, while rent boys and young prostitutes were on the streets, having been shoved out there through no fault of their own. I am glad that the House is now studying a social problem on a non-partisan basis and that, as it does when at its best, it will eventually come to a conclusion that is mutually acceptable to Parliament and the public. I am sure that my friends on both sides of the House are also happy to be a part of that.
  Dr. Harris: I should like to raise with the hon. Gentleman a point that I was unable to raise with the Home Secretary, although I should still be interested to hear the Home Secretary's view. Last year, the hon. Gentleman was careful to introduce his amendment in a non-discriminatory way; he was at pains to point that out and we respected that. Does he feel entirely comfortable with the current provision, whereby heterosexuals accused of abuse of trust will have a get-out through marriage, which is legal for 16 to 18-year-olds with parental permission, whereas that course of action is not open to homosexuals? Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any means of resolving that continued discrimination? I understood that the Government were keen to introduce a

  37
  non-discriminatory provision along the lines of the hon. Gentleman's amendment last year, but, so far, they do not appear to have done so.
  Mr. Ashton: My personal view is that marriage is a partnership: neither partner is in a position of supervision or trust in respect of the other. I have often wondered why homosexuals do not draw up a contract to cover long-standing partnerships, enabling them to leave pension rights to a partner, or even to obtain a spouse's travel warrant to the House of Commons. I would have no objection to such arrangements.
  However, to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I believe that the public would insist on there being some form of written contract that would stand up in law. If the framework for such contracts were to be put before Parliament, I believe that the majority of Members and of the public would find it acceptable. The public will not regard mere mutual friendships, which can end without recourse to the courts, as being equal to marriage. The possibility of marriage is a separate issue, which can be dealt with in the Standing Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman might be a member.
  I should like to thank some of the newspapers. Although we often criticise them, there is no doubt that, in respect of major social problems such as child abuse, the newspapers have the feel of the public and they know the causes of public protest. I have saved many cuttings since our debate last year. They include a story in the Yorkshire Post with the headline, "Pervert teacher preyed on children for 16 years", which describes how a teacher in Leeds raped a 12-year-old girl in a cupboard and terrorised his victims into not reporting him. Referring to the "epidemic in our midst", The Guardian named paedophiles, published photographs of them and described the crimes "that went unnoticed". The newspaper told of events at Greystone Heath, the approved school for boys in Warrington, saying:
  "a 21-year-old student teacher … went to work there. Over the ensuing four years, he raped … 16 boys".
  Other members of staff there included
  "Alan Langshaw who raped … 24 boys; Dennis Grain who raped … 18; Roy Shuttleworth who raped … 10; Jack Bennett who indecently assaulted two".
  The Guardian described how they "fanned out" and went to other institutions, including a Catholic boys' home, and other areas, such as north Wales. I give credit to the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and every other newspaper that has spent a great deal of time and effort exposing what has happened. An article entitled "Innocents on our streets of shame" dealt with children lured on to the streets by vice gangs. We should be reminded time and again of what is going on. The newspapers are not perverting public opinion but responding to it, and we have to respond as well.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that one of the changes that will be greatly welcomed when it is finally implemented is that it will be an offence of child abuse for an adult to buy sex with someone under the age of 16? At the moment, people who buy sex from youngsters, often children, get treated much more leniently in the courts than they should be.
  Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which I was going to come to later in
  38
  response to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about another Bill, perhaps in the next Session of Parliament, on sexual offences. It is not possible to put everything in this Bill; if we were to try to do so, it would take six months to get it through. The hon. Gentleman is right, as was the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. According to figures that he gave, 8 per cent. of men had suffered sexual abuse as a child, and I think that he said that the figure for women was 12 per cent. According to The Guardian, the figure for women was 20 per cent., revealing that abuse of women as children was far more prevalent.
  People who did not know where to turn go to court when they are 25 or 30 years old and, quite rightly, receive massive damages, which the councils have to pay. The crux of the matter is that, when abuse has been discovered, it has been covered up. That has been the case with teachers. Teachers have told me that they are not happy with the Bill, which they regard as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They say that the number of teachers involved is very small—certainly only a few get caught and are prosecuted.
  As the Utting report showed repeatedly, schools, teachers governors and councils do not want the bad publicity. Cases have been covered up. In the Evening Standard, there was, quite rightly, a big row about Islington council and the extent of child abuse there. It was hushed up, not for political reasons but because of demands by staff and headmasters who do not want other parents to take their children from the school. They do not want parents storming down to the school, protesting and telling teachers that they are not doing their job. That has gone on for years.
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Does my hon. Friend share with me the concern felt by many that insurance companies effectively compel local authorities to keep their information hidden lest they lose their insurance cover?
  Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. About eight years ago, I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We undertook an inquiry into criminal injuries compensation legislation. We considered various cases, one of which involved a man who had sodomised his wife and stepson, for which he had gone to prison. He was beaten up by other prisoners and then put in a claim for criminal injuries. The claim was of course kicked out because he was not entitled to compensation.
  In the Select Committee, I asked who had claimed for the boy. There was no answer, only a deadly silence. No one had claimed for him—no councils were claiming for abused children. However, the case started an avalanche of claims. If I remember rightly, the insurance company Municipal Mutual ran into serious difficulties as a result. It put a great deal of pressure on local councils to get rid of the offenders and not to take them to court, because that would have saved them a lot of money.
  List 99 was supposedly a blacklist of teachers who had been sacked. I understood that there were about 100 teachers on that list. I am grateful to the Daily Mail, which—again since the previous debate on this matter—printed an analysis of a survey by the BBC2 education programme, "Just One Chance". That survey found that 39 authorities were keeping blacklists, and that more than

  39
  1,000 teachers had been sacked who had never been placed on List 99. They were suspected, but never convicted, of abusing children and were still working freely in schools. They appeared on the informal blacklist, but that information was not passed on. The Association of Chief Education Officers says that the rules operated by the Government's official central register, List 99, are too tight because it effectively contains only those people who have been convicted in a court.
  There was obviously a conspiracy of silence. Paedophiles have a network. One can gain access to that on the internet and buy child pornography. They move around the country from the care of one education authority to that of another and start their practices all over again.
  The situation has reached the stage where, for some local councils, the most important consideration is not looking after the poor abused child but keeping quiet and not blowing the whistle. Anybody who blows the whistle is ostracised. The average county council or borough council discipline code for employees who have to be sacked or suspended—they can be suspended for six or nine months on full pay—consists of about 200 pages of procedures that must be followed. The union can provide a defence. The whistleblower is hauled up before the inquiry committee and may change his evidence because he is put under pressure. At the end of all that, everybody says of the alleged abuser, "For God's sake, let's get rid of him and move him on." He moves on to abuse again.
  We should be grateful to newspapers for highlighting those matters. Detective Chief Inspector Gould of Avon and Somerset police warned about children at risk on foreign exchange trips. He had uncovered 500 cases of abuse and neglect involving children sent on trips by schools and firms. He said that
  "English children … have unwittingly been placed by their school with known paedophiles in Spain, France and Canada."
  Of course people should be responsible for that. We should know which schools have not made checks.
  I said that I welcomed the Bill, but I have a couple of doubts. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for those doubts, which relate not to a loophole but to a serious social problem.
  Parents have rights too. I have received a lot of criticism from the National Association of Head Teachers saying that head teachers are being put under a great deal of pressure, but the response from parents has been overwhelming. I have also received letters from women aged over 40 who said that when they were 16—above the age of consent—they fell in love with their music teacher. They had wanted to be professional musicians and had a close relationship with their teacher, but they bitterly regretted that. When their parents complained to the school, the response was that the girl was 16 and the school could do nothing.
  Men wrote saying that they had wanted to get into the football team. They knew that what their teacher was doing was against the rules but they had badly wanted to get into the team because they had wanted to be a professional footballer. I shall not reveal names or addresses, but those letters were cries from the heart. Many people, who were over the age of consent, suffered an emotional trauma.
  40
  I mentioned two loopholes to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. People have asked about cases involving 16-year-olds at work, whose boss is on to them. They do not want to lose their job and they are frightened of being made redundant or not being promoted. I understand that the Bill does not cover 16 and 17-year-olds at work who are being harassed because they can generally go home and tell their mother and father. They have somebody to go to, to lean on, whereas a youngster in a boarding school or a young offenders institution, or who lives with a foster parent, has not. That is why such youngsters have to seek help from Childline, which was set up by Esther Rantzen.
  I am happy with what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done with regard to work, but there is another category of youngsters who are terribly abused: those who are put on the streets by pimps. Such people run away from care or a foster parent because of abuse, and find a friendly face on the street who, in two or three days, has them on drugs and selling themselves.
  I know that we do not want to make the Bill so big that it covers every sexual offence. My original amendment concerned authority, supervision and trust. I think that a pimp who puts a young woman on the game, as it is called, by supplying her with drugs has authority over her. I hope that, in Committee, we can alter the Bill to include authority, especially concerning those who give drugs to a 16 or 17-year-old in order to make some financial gain.
  I happen to live about half a mile from where the Yorkshire Ripper was caught. The area goes up and down, but I will not go into details. A woman who lives quite near there wrote to me, and every other Member of Parliament who represents a Sheffield constituency, about her daughter. Mrs. Irene Iveson is a constituent of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), whom I will chide in a minute. Mrs. Iveson's daughter, Fiona, was enticed away from her middle-class family at the age of 16 by a pimp, who put her on drugs. She was totally under his control. He put her on the streets, where she was murdered by a client. On what grounds can the pimp be charged, bearing in mind that the girl was 16? I think that he was charged with some minor offence and bound over. Mrs. Iveson rightly says that there should be legislation to prevent such events. Fiona would never have been murdered if that man had not put her on drugs at the age of 16 and put her on the streets.
  The hon. Member for Hallam took up the case. The Star in Sheffield reported him saying that he was the only person who had done anything about the matter, that the Prime Minister had done nothing. Two weeks after speaking and voting against the amendments that I tabled, he was out saying that the Liberals are the only ones who care.
  Mr. Richard Allan: I shall respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman's direct challenge. I have tremendous respect for the spirit of what he is attempting to do, but felt—I thought that I had made it clear in my speech, which I shall check—that the wording of his amendment was rather all-encompassing. I know that he has a different view about driving parliamentary draftsmen to do something. I tabled amendments specifically on the offence of pimping, and will continue to support the call for the

  41
  creation of specific offences. I felt that his amendments were too general and that it was a problem that they did not distinguish between pimps and other people.
  Mr. Ashton: We are always ready to welcome a sinner who has repented. I accept the hon. Gentleman's apologies. I very much welcome the fact that he will join us in the Lobby. Perhaps we can discuss that matter, and the question of whistleblowers, in Committee.
  I welcome the Bill. It will become major and important legislation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is due great credit for introducing it.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), even though he chided my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) inaccurately. I respect the hon. Gentleman for moving forward the discussion and opening up a relevant area of debate as a Back Bencher. I commend him, even if he thinks that that is too dangerously like Lib-Lab co-operation. I shall move on because I know that he is not very keen on that sort of thing.
  For Liberal Democrats, this a free-vote issue. Our party manifesto supported equalisation of the law, while reserving the right of Members of Parliament to dissent in a free vote. We welcome the fact that the Government have given the House an opportunity to consider protection for young people of either sex from abuse of a position of trust, whether of a heterosexual or homosexual nature. Many of us supported the amendments of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, although they also concerned a free-vote issue. We shall all need to consider the relevant clauses in detail—but, first, let us consider the main issue.
  There is a very wide range of opinions on homosexuality. Although there appear to have been some shifts of opinion in recent years, it still ranges from those who regard homosexual activity as morally repugnant to those who wish to affirm homosexuality as a commendable life style. Some people are disapproving but tolerant, whereas many others seek a society in which people of different sexual orientation can quietly go about their lives without its being an issue.
  My view is that the present discriminatory law cannot be justified from any of those standpoints, and that it has harmful consequences. Moral disapproval on the part of some people, however strongly held, does not provide grounds for making private acts into criminal offences. Of course, if there is no consent, or if a position of trust has been abused, or if one of those involved is too young to be presumed able to give informed consent, the protection of the criminal law may be needed, and other parts of the Bill make that possible; but I do snot think that a person over 16 who is allowed to marry and required to pay taxes can be presumed to be too young to give consent. If they are to be so presumed, it follows that heterosexual activity at 16 and homosexual acts involving 16-year-old girls should be subject to identical protection—and the House has consistently decided against that course of action.
  Many of us who are worried about premature sexual activity by teenagers and its consequences for health have to recognise that turning teenagers into criminals does not help. If someone needs to seek medical advice about HIV
  42
  or AIDS, or needs guidance at a time of emotional turmoil, having to admit to a criminal offence can be a powerful deterrent to getting the help that they need.
  I welcome the inclusion of provisions about abuse of trust, whether heterosexual or homosexual conduct, not least because so much evidence is coming to light of systematic abuse of young people by adults in such positions, but hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to be sure that those clauses have the right scope.
  There is, rightly, an emphasis on protection for young people in residential institutions; but, beyond that boundary, where should the lines be drawn? Does it make sense to include teachers in day schools but not people who supervise young people at work, or who supervise them in the activities of youth organisations, some of which are residential? Doctors are not included, presumably because they are subject to medical disciplinary procedures. Some of my hon. Friends share the view of teaching organisations that a strong General Teaching Council—which we advocate in any case—should be the body to discipline teachers in a similar way for such breaches of professional conduct. Either way, I believe that something must be done. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, the practice in schools has sometimes been to get rid of abusers as quickly and quietly as possible, by giving them an ultimatum accompanied by a good reference, thereby passing the problem on to another school, but there is scope for considerable argument about how some professions should be dealt with.
  Mr. Rowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of the people who, in middle age, become systematic and vicious abusers start out, as young people, with a much less developed criminality, and that, if it were made easier to intervene effectively earlier, there would be a much better chance that they could be diverted? Does he agree that the idea that it is kind to a professional colleague to allow them to slide discreetly into another job is very misguided as well as, later, potentially very dangerous?
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman may have a point. I should like to reflect on it, because I am not sure whether objective evidence shows that patterns of behaviour have limited incidence in earlier years and greater incidence in later years. However, I rest on the argument that something needs to be done for the sake of victims of abuse. Early intervention may well be desirable, even from the abuser's standpoint, as I believe is the case in other respects.
  There are other areas in which there is not equality before the law for male homosexuals. The review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will need to consider some of those areas. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has often pointed out in debates, private consensual sexual acts involving more than two people do not constitute a criminal offence if the conduct is heterosexual or if all the persons are female, but they do if all the persons are male. That matter is the subject of an application to the European Court of Human Rights, so we shall have to give it further attention.
  The sex offenders register is another area of concern. I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect carefully on the issues. The names of all offenders under the Bill will be put on the register. I shall cite two possible cases that raise concerns.

  43
  First, a man who was put on the register because he had a single consensual sexual relationship when he was 17, before the enactment of the Bill, will remain on the register even though that action would no longer be an offence. I do not think that that is reasonable. Describing to me the review that is taking place, the Home Secretary stated in a letter:
  "I should make clear that none of the changes which may be brought forward"—
  that is, following the review—
  "will be retrospective, and we do not propose any retrospective changes to the scope of the register in respect of equalisation of the age of consent."
  Not many members of the general public would regard it as reasonable for someone in the limited circumstances that I described to remain on the sex offenders register, which is designed to deal with case such as those to which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred, involving a repeat offender and a strong possibility of further offences. Names should not be left on the register as a result of a single offence that is no longer an offence.
  Secondly, it is questionable whether a 22-year-old teacher, who on one occasion formed a relationship with a 17-year-old pupil, which might even have led to marriage, should be on the sex offenders register. It may have been right for the teacher to lose his job and suffer some penalty, but the purpose of the register is to reduce the risks from potential repeat offenders, which such a person would not be.
  Even after the Bill is passed, the law relating to sexual offences will still be beset with anomalies and anachronisms. However, if it is passed, an unjustified element of discrimination will be removed; the role of the criminal law will be more precisely limited to what it can usefully and properly do, rather than serving as a statement of some people's moral convictions, which not everyone shares; and the protection of young people against abuse of positions of trust for sexual purposes of any kind will be significantly strengthened.
  5.2 pm
  Ann Keen: Much has been said about this issue in the House over the years, and the House has had many opportunities to debate the age of consent. I am particularly pleased that many hon. Members, across all parties, supported my amendment last June, although I was disappointed and concerned that it did not become law. I am extremely pleased that the Government have returned to the issue in a Government Bill, and that it is so strongly supported by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  Many, many young gay men and women look to Parliament to make it possible for them to be accepted and respected in our society. There continues to be so much damage to our young people. Persecution, discrimination and prejudice still exist. Today, we have another opportunity to end that and to show that we value all our young people.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is to be commended on all her work. The Good Friday agreement covers many areas, including not
  44
  only political and religious elements, but sexual orientation. It is an excellent example of the new thinking that is needed to embrace all the people and end discrimination against any of our people, wherever they live.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) introduced provisions relating to the abuse of trust, and I am pleased to participate in the debate tonight on the abuse of trust of young people. I want to make it quite plain, however, that I consider the age of consent to be a separate issue from that of the abuse of trust of young people in care. In previous debates, it was suggested that those who believe in an equal age of consent do not have at heart the well-being of our young people. I find that offensive.
  Until recently, I was a member of the Select Committee on Health and contributed to a report on the migration of our young people who were sent out to Australia and New Zealand in the 1950s and 1960s, and the treatment that they received. Sadly, those young people are now gravely damaged adults, having experienced abuse by the religious organisations to which they were sent, such as the Christian Brothers. Their lives and futures have been seriously blighted as a result.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the incredibly enlightened remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on the desirability of registering partnerships? Does she share my hope that the Home Secretary will take note of that?
  Ann Keen: I am sure that all hon. Members will have noted those remarks.
  I was dealing with the issue of trust. I am extremely pleased that young women have been mentioned. When this matter was debated previously, many members of the other place argued that it was unnecessary to protect young women because they dealt with abuse much better than young men. Many female Members of Parliament, and many more of our constituents, were greatly offended by that suggestion.
  For that reason and many others, a different approach must be taken in relation to the age of consent. It is a key issue. Young people and many experienced organisations that work with them, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, Barnados, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, counselling groups, social workers, the Terence Higgins trust, HIV and AIDS workers, all say that an equal age of consent is crucial if young people are to be protected and valued. Young people need to grow emotionally; they need self-esteem; and they need a youth that they can talk about. The message that the House can send out today is that all young people are to be valued.
  Some people suggest that the involvement and enforcement of the law can discourage young people from being gay. Do they seriously suggest that close family members and friends should report young people to the police? If a son informs his mother about his sexuality, should she tell him in an emotional way, "Of course, this will all end with criminal action, because that is what is best for you"? No one who seriously cares about young people would do that. Advice and support should never be denied to a young person.
  Much has been said about young gay men that has been offensive to those concerned, but also to their parents, many of whom have contacted me to say so. Many more

  45
  will continue to do so until we put the matter to rest. What sort of love for one's child is it when one calls for the law to be enforced more vigorously? If we go down that route, the message is that bullying at school, homophobia, beatings and persecution are the right way. Mothers and head teachers—and, sadly, the number of recorded suicides—tell us differently. Real love, care and concern mean ensuring that young people are not criminalised for their sexuality.
  I have already mentioned health protection. The White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", deals with that issue. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is not in his place, was involved in bringing AIDS and HIV to people's attention, and much good work was done. He said that it was difficult to communicate on sexuality and to get the message across. How much more difficult it is to get that message across when some young people—young gay men—are criminalised. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned public concern and said that public opinion was against the age of consent being reduced to 16. I would ask him to look more carefully at that opinion poll rating, because it says what most parents would say: 16 is too young for their children to have sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual sex.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that reducing the age of consent to 16 for homosexual acts would be a crucial consolidating measure—which would bring heterosexual and homosexual acts together, give credibility to the age of consent and reinforce it at 16 for homosexuality and heterosexuality—and a crucial child protection measure?
  Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he is right; that is exactly what would be enforced.
  For the first time, the extent of abuse against young people is being recognised by head teachers, education departments and school nurses, and the excellent document produced by Stonewall shows the extent of bullying in schools. The law as it stands is unworkable; the police have a difficult job in dealing with unrest in our society, and they believe that the law as it stands is a hindrance to the important work that they are doing to combat homophobic violence.
  With this extended Bill and the extended time that the House has been given for debate, and as our Government are introducing much-needed measures to protect young people in all aspects of life, let us please send from this House the message that tolerance, fairness and protection are what we are about. I hope that, this time, the Bill will become law.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: Hon. Members may be aware of a statue, which was put up last year near the Strand, dedicated to Oscar Wilde. It is a sad and sobering statue, but, like much good and great art, it is provocative. Looking at that statue, I see a face of misery, and perhaps other things about the way in which we, as a society, have behaved. I see what we, as a society, did to an individual, and have continued to do through much of this century. Our society has, I believe, been intolerant and hypocritical
  46
  and has perpetuated the belief that the behaviour of people such as Oscar Wilde was unnatural, wrong and, by our statutes, criminal.
  Mr. Robathan: I am not an expert on Oscar Wilde, but I understand that it is well documented that he went to north Africa with a friend, where they spent some time in the company of unfortunate children—boys, who were acting as prostitutes—whom they bought. I hope that every hon. Member would condemn that. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we should not make too much of Oscar Wilde's virtues?
  Mr. Woodward: My hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention, but one which I fear only trivialises the issue that we are trying to address—not because of the particular actions of which he speaks, although I have no evidence and know nothing about the matter to which he refers, but because we are discussing how we wish to behave in future. That is crucial.
  There have been improvements in this century. The Wolfenden report, for example, was an important new chapter in the story of our progress towards behaving as a more civilised and more tolerant society. That chapter continued with our vote in 1994, and today's debate is one more chapter in what started as a sad and miserable story for our country. It is also a chapter that owes no small debt to last year's amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill, tabled by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). It was a brave and important amendment, and, like a number of other people, I am only sorry that it was lost in another place.
  I should register an interest: I am a director and former deputy chairman of Childline, the charity set up to help children in trouble or danger, which has worked with young people. As the subject has been referred to a number of times in another place, I should also register my interest as an Anglican. It may be the province of some Anglicans to speak against the amended legislation this evening, but many people who believe in God also believe that perpetuating the law as it stands is a profoundly unchristian and unloving action.
  All hon. Members should recognise at the outset that amendment of the law is now overwhelmingly supported by organisations that are specifically concerned with protecting children and young people. Those organisations are not pressure groups; many, such as Childline, are simply there to listen, and the role that they play in listening is crucial. Evidence from the young people who have telephoned Childline paints a sad picture—a picture of misery, fear and bullying, which is perpetuated by the stand of the current legislation.
  A tragic fact of which many hon. Members will be unaware is that young people trying to come to terms with their sexual identity often become desperate. Not only do they feel that they are not part of the mainstream; they feel that they are ostracised from society. As a result, they are compelled to disguise their feelings, and, far from supporting them, we force them into isolation. Their hiding place is the repository of fear and worry.
  We set such young people apart. We do not help them with the current legislation; we hurt them. Any attempt to engage in a relationship with someone of the same sex faces them with a terrifying dilemma, in that what they are doing is committing a criminal offence. That fear cannot

  47
  possibly breed any desire for a loving relationship with another individual. It is a wholly destructive force, but it will continue for as long as the present legislation exists.
  It is not surprising that Childline has evidence from a number of young people who, as a result of that dilemma, have tried to take their own lives. Sexual identity is a significant factor in suicides and attempted suicides, especially in the case of young men, and our current legislation must bear a heavy responsibility for perpetuating such desperate feelings.
  Over the past 200 years, Parliament has debated a number of moral issues, the crucial question being whether something is right or wrong. Those issues have tested our humanity, and our sense of Britain as a civilised and civilising nation. We have discussed the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, votes for women, civil rights and racial discrimination. In every instance, there has come a moment at which Parliament has been the focus of a great national debate.
  Those arguing against change have always reached for the morality of the enfranchised majority, but does any hon. Member believe today that Wilberforce was wrong—although at the time the Cabinet, the monarchy and Britain's most powerful interests were ranged against him? The same enfranchised majority wished to deny women the vote, but does anyone believe today that the country would be a better place if women did not sit in the House? Until tragically recently, a similar morality justified the treatment of some people as different members of the human race, and as inferior beings, because of the colour of their skins.
  Today, we are debating again whether the criminal law should continue to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. This is an issue of compassion, and of protection; but it is also, crucially, an issue of discrimination. The current law is wrong because it is wrong. Hon. Members should consider carefully what we mean by right and wrong. Currently, young people may be forced to spend the first years of their sexual awareness—their early adult years—knowing that, if they express their true feelings, they may spend time in prison. That can breed only shame, fear, resentment and—as the evidence of countless children's organisations shows—a culture of bullying.
  Let us be clear. The issue is about whether a relationship between one human being and another should be a criminal act. It is not about urging people to be promiscuous, or urging young people to have sex at 16. It is not a debate about anal intercourse. It is a debate about whether society should judge young people to be criminals because, at 16, their sexual orientation sets them apart from a so-called majority.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend explain how the argument that he advances could not then be applied to any new age of consent set at a lower level: 15 or 14, as other organisations are already requesting?
  Mr. Woodward: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is something to which I will come to in my remarks.
  We need an equal age of consent to protect young people from injustice and from prejudice. It will protect them from fear and from exploitation. Crucially, it will
  48
  also protect their health. By amending the law, we will make them part of a civil and civilised society and strengthen our society for all of us—heterosexual or homosexual.
  I respect the views of those who take a different view from me on the important moral issue of the age of consent, but, in thinking of their reasons, hon. Members should ask themselves the actual reason behind their arguments. Is it reason, is it principle or is it prejudice masquerading as principle?
  We load on to those young people whom we ostracise at the moment a burden of responsibility, and risk ignoring the far greater worries that I have seen many times in my work for Childline. The immorality is not committed by gay young men who wish to engage in a consenting relationship with someone of their age but by those in the heterosexual community: by and large, the abuse of children is committed not by homosexual people, but by heterosexual people. Very often, they are in a position of trust. Sadly, the Bill will not make it any easier to identify them. Far too often, the abuse happens in the confines of the home and is perpetrated by those whom children most trust. The issue of the age of consent is far different because it is something that the House can change.
  The Bishop of Bath and Wells spoke eloquently on the subject in what was probably the most important speech in another place last year. He said:
  "I cannot help but feel that there is a scapegoating procedure going on here which is not new in history and not new in our society."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 953.]
  Tonight, we have a chance to end the scapegoating. We have a chance because we genuinely have an opportunity to ask ourselves whether we speak from principle or from prejudice; whether we speak from knowledge, or are simply rehearsing old stories and old prejudices that we have given ourselves no time fully to reflect on and consider.
  I say again to hon. Members who are unhappy with the Bill: have they truly looked at the evidence? Have they spoken to organisations that work with young people? Have they spoken to the medical profession? Have they spoken to the psychiatrists who have to pick up the pieces for those who are damaged by the legislation as it currently stands? After all, it was so-called principle which led us to sustain a slave trade, and which, in South Africa, allowed the townships of apartheid to be sustained for so long.
  Let those who reach easily for opinion polls ask what a Gallup or a MORI in the mid-18th century would have told us about the slave trade. Would it have been right to use that evidence to sustain that inhuman, unjust and barbaric practice, which degraded not only those engaged in that trade but the society that condoned it?
  The House would do well to remember the views of one of its most principled members this century. Enoch Powell argued from first principles. Soon after the 1967 report on homosexual offences, he stood firmly—against many—for its implementation. Public opinion would not have been with him, but today a majority are in favour of what he stood for. He was convinced on principle. For him it was a matter of freedom, but it was also about leadership, which required bravery. This is a time for Parliament to do the right thing: to amend the law and demonstrate leadership.

  49
  Parliament is addressing the issue in 1999. There can be no more fitting time to change the law than as we approach the next millennium. This has been a remarkable century—remarkable for its achievements, but remarkable for its injustice, too. As a society, we may like to think that we have come a long way, but there is still much that we have to learn, and much to do.
  Some hon. Members may be aware of the wonderful lectures given by Leonard Bernstein at Harvard. He spoke of the repeated cycle in this century of greed and hypocrisy, which led to genocidal war, which led to a time of post-war hysteria, injustice, booms, crashes and totalitarianism, before the cycle repeated itself. In all that, there is a profound sense of injustice. Our capacity for injustice is enormous. Tonight we have an opportunity to redress that.
  Some will say that there is a moral case not to amend the law, but there is a stronger moral case for change. The argument is not about numbers and how many people will be affected. It should not be about majorities or minorities. It does not matter whether we are talking about 5,000, 50,000, 500,000 or 5 million people. Discrimination is bad. It is abhorrent in principle and should be removed wherever we find it.
  The House should be aware of the pain that the law engenders. We need to look at the evidence. That must come before our feelings. I ask those who are against the Bill to look .again at the evidence. If they will not, they must ask themselves why. In 1989, the United States Department of Health and Human Services produced a report on youth suicide, which said:
  "Gay youths are 2-3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30 per cent. of completed youth suicides annually."
  It also said:
  "The root of the problem of gay youth suicide is a society that discriminates against and stigmatises homosexuals while failing to recognise that a substantial number of its youth has a gay or lesbian orientation."
  A number of voluntary organisations that work with young people in this country provide tragic evidence of the loneliness and despair that those young people feel because of the way in which our society continues to discriminate. Bullying is a real problem in our schools. Accusations of homosexuality provide plenty of cause for those who wish to bully.
  Some argue that we should uphold the discrimination because boys, unlike girls, are not mature enough at 16 to make decisions about their sexuality. Many hon. Members will find it bizarre that young men should be thought to need such protection, but that young women should not. That is an insult to young men and a crude injustice to young women. I ask those who fight for the status quo, why should not women be equal before the law, too?
  The greatest responsibility that any of us will assume in our adult lives is that of being a parent. I have four children. The first was born when I was nearly 30, but legally I could have been a father at 16. Our current law recognises the maturity of a 16-year-old for the greatest responsibility that any individual can undertake—that of being a parent responsible for another human being during their childhood years. Yet as regards personal orientation, the law would seek to deny that individual his or her maturity. If one's orientation is homosexual, one is an outlaw. To practise it is criminal.
  50
  As a Conservative, I believe firmly in freedom and the rule of law. As a Conservative, I ask my hon. Friends this: why should the law interfere in the private behaviour of citizens when that behaviour does no harm to others? The answer should be the same for those who dislike homosexuality as for those who practise it. The answer should be that there should be no discrimination—for a Conservative, because he or she believes in individual freedom; for a Socialist, because he or she believes in equality.
  The rule of law should be there to uphold our freedom, and to protect it. We must protect our children, and that is why we need an age of consent. However, the question that we are addressing today is not whether there should or should not be an age of consent—of course there should. Today, we are debating whether we should continue to use the power of criminal law to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual acts, and by doing so, terrorise young people and cause terrible damage at the critical age when they are embarking on their first adult, mature relationships with another human being.
  Mr. Ashton: The age of consent was not plucked out of thin air in the first place. It goes back to the case of W. T. Stead, who bought a young child to prove that children could be bought for prostitution. The age of consent was then 13. Eventually, 16 was chosen as the age for marriage because that was the age when it was thought that a young girl could deliver and feed a child that would have a fair chance of living—which, in those days, it would not have had if the mother was 12 or 13. Sixteen was also the age at which it was thought a young man could earn a living wage. That is why the age for marriage was set at 16. It came from a court case concerning a newspaper editor who bought a child to prove that it could be done. He went to prison because he defended himself instead of having a lawyer who could have proved that the child's parents were not married. It is a long saga, but the hon. Gentleman will see how the age emerged if he reads the books in the Library.
  Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Crucially, the debate is not about whether we should lower the current age of consent for heterosexual people. It is about whether or not we should continue to outlaw and criminalise the activities of those people who, through no fault of their own—and far too often people wish to ascribe fault in this matter, which is a nonsensical proposal—are homosexual. There is no discrimination in the eyes of most people in this country. There is in the law, and the law needs to be amended. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the law and remove the discrimination.
  Let us be clear about what the law can and cannot do. As a trustee of Childline, I am aware that the sexual abuse of children is a criminal offence—rightly so. The sad truth is that the law alone has not been able to prevent sexual abuse within the family. In the past 10 years, Childline has worked hard to change the climate in which children can report sexual abuse.
  Childline's work is based on listening to children—listening to their pain and their suffering. Perhaps 15 or 20 years ago, people in this country did not want to recognise the scale of sexual abuse. However, it was there, and Childline now deals with tens of thousands of cases of child abuse every year.

  51
  Childline has learnt from listening to children, and we should learn from listening to young people. If we believe in learning and listening, we would do well to study the considerable volume of work by those charities working in the field of child protection. It is significant that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children supports an equal age of consent, saying:
  "In our view, there should be equality because continuing discrimination in law against homosexuals stigmatises young people growing up gay, hinders them from developing a positive self image and prevents them from seeking information and help in coming to terms with their sexuality."
  The NSPCC is in the company of charities such as Save the Children, Barnardos, National Children's Bureau, the British Youth Council, the Family Welfare Association and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—the organisations are legion—as well as those in the medical profession. Medical professionals believe that we better protect young people by an equal age of consent.
  The evidence is supported most clearly by the work of the British Medical Association, but there are others. We should remind ourselves of the BMA statement:
  "There is no convincing reason against reducing the age of consent for male homosexuals to 16 and to do so may yield positive health benefits."
  The Health Education Authority supports that position, believing that the current legislation works against promoting health care in young people. It believes that the law as it stands restricts getting health information about sexual diseases, AIDS and HIV to young people. Teachers and youth workers are inhibited from working with young homosexual men and women because of the law. Do we really believe that Parliament should ignore the advice of all those bodies and all those professionals who work with and listen to young people?
  Let us clear up one ludicrous myth that continues to be perpetuated by those who want to hold on to the status quo. Homosexuality does not cause AIDS; the HIV virus does. The all-party parliamentary group on AIDS said:
  "Effective health promotion strategies work best in a supportive and open climate. The evidence presented to the hearing made clear that barriers to such a climate were perceived to include the unequal age of consent for homosexual men."
  Unprotected sex carries health risks, not only for young men engaging with young men but for young men engaging with women. Whatever one's orientation, unprotected sex is dangerous. Unsafe sex always carries the risk of HIV infection, and it is significant that HIV is highly prevalent in Africa because of unsafe sex; it is of epidemic proportions and, by and large, it is devastating heterosexual, not homosexual, communities in Africa.
  Those who have painted AIDS as a gay plague face a heavy responsibility for the spread of AIDS and HIV today. Their prejudice and ignorance and their refusal to examine the medical and social evidence mean that entire heterosexual communities in Africa are being wiped out, because of the failure to understand that AIDS and HIV are spread by unsafe sexual practices.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: To help to set my ignorance at rest, can my hon. Friend tell me whether he accepts that the practice of anal sex, whether between a man and a man
  52
  or between a man and a woman, is more likely to spread HIV and AIDS than the practice of what is generally called straight sex?
  Mr. Woodward: The House has an opportunity to examine some of the prejudices behind my hon. Friend's comments. In his amusing autobiography, Stephen Fry points out that anal intercourse is of course not the prerogative of the homosexual community. He says that many homosexuals do not practise anal sex and that, if one considers the numbers and the fact that most people are heterosexual, it is a practice indulged in largely by heterosexuals: the straight people to whom my hon. Friend referred.
  The reality is that the continuation of the wish to belittle, trivialise and caricature the relationships between homosexuals does enormous damage in our society. When people are prepared to grow up and approach the issue in a mature, considered way, we will be able to have a serious debate.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I thank my hon. Friend—and I use that term deliberately—for giving way. Perhaps I can help him in his conversation with the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The main cause of the spread of HIV in Africa is heterosexual, vaginal intercourse. The infectivity of the virus is exacerbated by the heavy presence of other sexually transmitted diseases with which it might be possible to deal if the appropriate medical treatment were available.
  I am sorry to have interrupted my hon. Friend's excellent speech. If his party had the sense to grasp the sort of leadership that he is showing, it might regain power in 15 years or so.
  Mr. Woodward: I may have to be cautious in responding to the hon. Gentleman's approbation, but I welcome it.
  In this country, the greatest risk associated with unprotected sex is not that of spreading HIV or AIDS. It arises when heterosexual people engage in unsafe sex, and it involves not only sexually transmitted diseases but the possibility that a young woman will suffer an unwanted pregnancy and that a young man will become a father.
  At 16, young males are engaging in their first meaningful physical relationships. It is a time for learning, and for maturing—not for fathering a child. I am grateful that I did not do so until I was nearly 30: if I had fathered a child at 16, my life would have been very different. To have become a father at that age would not have been good, but I do not believe that it would have been right if the law had said that, at 16, I should not have engaged in a mature relationship with another person. The reality is that, in Britain, there are 14,000 pregnancies every year involving young girls. If my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East is worried about risks, he should concentrate his efforts on that figure.
  However, we do not use the criminal law to prevent heterosexual 16-year-olds from taking those risks. Instead, we rightly resort to education and information. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East may have proper motives in wishing to examine the sexual practices of people in Africa and the regularity of indulgence in anal intercourse in heterosexual or homosexual relationships,

  53
  but I can tell him that time spent with those organisations that work with and help young people suffering from HIV and AIDS is time well spent.
  By the same principle, we should use education and information rather than the criminal law to help young gay men aged 16 and over to avoid exposing themselves to unnecessary risks.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I wish to associate myself 100 per cent. with all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in his magnificent speech, and to point out, in connection with the earlier intervention by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), that decriminalisation is very important in helping to get health and education messages through to people who may be putting themselves at risk. The British Medical Association is in many ways a conservative body, but it supported unanimously—for reasons of health education and for other reasons—the proposal to reduce and equalise the age of consent at 16.
  Mr. Woodward: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The criminal law will never stop people having sex. However, an effective HIV prevention strategy will be impossible to implement if the law always makes the activity in question a criminal offence.
  Many people have raised the question whether a change in the law will lead to more young men becoming the victims of predatory older men. There is no evidence of that happening in other countries where there is an equal age of consent, although I am entirely sure that that prejudice is not the exclusive prerogative of these shores. However, the question gives rise to another: why should the law protect young men—if it can—from the predatory individual, but not young women? If we need a law to protect young men from predatory older men, why should not women be protected as well?
  The sad truth is that some people in our society will prey on younger people. The evidence for that is plentiful in every square in every town in the country. We need to encourage a climate in which those who are preyed upon feel safe to report those who menace them.
  The law should not distinguish between young men and young girls in consenting relationships, but young men and women are equal victims when it comes to predatory behaviour. Predators are predators, victims are victims and all victims need protection.
  We are discussing the relationship between consenting people. The debate is not about an activity that is forced on young people. Rape is rape and indecent assault is indecent assault, whether it is between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. All acts that are illegal because they are not consenting are illegal and should remain so. No one is suggesting that this Bill should in any way legitimise assault. Indeed, by changing the climate in which assaults can be reported, the Bill will do the very opposite. We need to feel sure that we are putting in place a better judicial system, in which victims will be able to come forward. This legislation will help.
  The present climate, by its very discrimination, often prevents pėople from reporting rape and indecent assault by other men. Many police officers say that it is a real problem that remains to be tackled. However, it is just as important for a 17-year-old man to report such an offence
  54
  as for a 37-year-old man. Many 37-year-old or 57-year-old men and women still do not report assault and rape because they are afraid of the stigma that goes with it.
  Discrimination against gay people discourages them from going to the police because they continue to fear the stigma that society bestows on them. All young adults in consenting relationships need sex education. They need advice, which is important. Indeed, it is particularly important for young people who may be gay because they are often going through a particularly uncertain period and it is particularly challenging to them. They hesitate to seek such advice because they fear that in so doing they will be breaking the law. The same law inhibits those who want to help or counsel young people. We should remember that while homophobia may be a new word it is not a new experience. It is deep-rooted in our society and it affects young people tragically.
  If young people who are gay are attacked, they can be at risk of being prosecuted simply by reporting that they have been involved in what is effectively illegal activity as the law stands. They render themselves open to blackmail and to exploitation. Where is the morality in continuing with such injustice?
  In 1994, when the House debated lowering the age of consent to 18, some Members thought a compromise was necessary. Apparently, that would allow the consequences of stopping halfway at 18, rather than taking the law to an equal age of consent at 16, to be assessed. That was five years ago. Since then, too many young people have continued to suffer and yet there is no evidence to support the argument that a discriminatory age of consent has been of benefit.
  We are all aware of the crime problems on our streets. Is it sensible and wise for the House to continue to encourage police resources to be used to pursue young people engaging in consensual activity, predominantly with people of their own age? Of course, it is not.
  Mr. Rowe: Homosexual behaviour sometimes comes to light when the police are investigating something else. It is suggested that when it does come to light, they are distracted from the crime that they originally intended to pursue and pursue that with rather more vigour. That is part and parcel of the discrimination of which my hon. Friend speaks.
  Mr. Woodward: Clearly, discrimination in whatever form is bad. The distraction of the police at a time when people continue to worry about crime is bad.
  Criminalising consensual relationships is wrong. The law can continue to outlaw meaningful relationships, but we can be certain that it will not suppress the expression of feelings between one individual and another. Our present law is the law of the intolerant and it has a bullying element. For those who are homosexual, it is a law that encourages not meaningful relationships but clandestine behaviour, fear and isolation. As the columnist Simon Jenkins wrote a few years ago,
  "The current situation represents the persecution of a minority to appease the prejudice of a majority."
  Today, we have the opportunity to end the persecution and let prejudice give way to reason, evidence and principle. Historians will look back at this period of discrimination against young people with the same

  55
  opprobrium with which we now look back on those who sought to justify the slave trade. Historians will simply ask, "How could they go on justifying something that was so patently unfair and unjust?"
  A few months ago, I celebrated my 40th birthday and was given a cigarette box; politically correct Members will disapprove because smoking is deeply unfashionable. On the box was a quote from the composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein. It is very meaningful because it talks about the pilot light in all our lives that burns for something better. Bernstein often reflected in his work on the meaning of our life. He felt compelled to talk about the
  "life and death importance of living out"
  what he described as "the will to love". He spoke of the struggle to ensure that
  "love was a practical reality",
  and of the need
  "To remind ourselves by nudging our awareness of the profound moral imperative we share to make our lives, moment by moment, an uninterrupted action of bearing witness."
  Today, whatever our faith, we have the opportunity to show our humanity, to nudge our awareness, to encourage meaningful relationships for those who are homosexual but have the misfortune to be between 16 and 18. We have the chance to bear witness, to show our maturity and to make our country a better, more tolerant and more understanding society. I hope that hon. Members will take this chance to do something that is not only right but good.
  5.52 pm
  Kali Mountford: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) on one of the most powerful speeches that I have ever heard. It was certainly one of the most reasoned, and I found it emotional too. I do not disagree with a word that he said. In years to come, his speech will spark a chord in all our hearts and remind us of a day when reason overtook the unreasonable, and compassion took the place of prejudice.
  I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) because without them, we would not be discussing this crucial progression in our social history. I thank them wholeheartedly for their contributions.
  Having heard some of my best arguments stolen in this reasoned debate, I shall revert to the position of a mother who must consider as her children grow the sort of world that she wants them to occupy, the space that she wants them to live in, the values that the world upholds and what she wants for them. The teenage years are turbulent for us all, regardless of sexuality. It is a difficult and traumatic time even for members of the majority. Members of minority groups of any sort—sexuality can constitute one—find life incredibly difficult. One need have only a few freckles or red hair, or wear spectacles—I speak from experience—to know the cruel remarks that friends at school will make. That must be multiplied a thousand times if one stands out like a sore thumb as a result of one's—I hesitate to use the word "preference" even though Stonewall do—sexuality, or of the people to whom one is most attracted.
  56
  Let us examine where attraction comes from. It is not correct to talk about choice and life style. We all make choices about our partners, but we do not choose any old partner. As a woman, looking around the Chamber, I could not say that I would be automatically attracted to every man here. Indeed, as a happily married woman, I hesitate to say that I would be attracted to anyone. In their choices of partners, women choose from a selective group of particular individuals who are attractive to them. Likewise, heterosexual males are not attracted to any old woman; I like to think that they have some discrimination in their choice of partners. The same is true of same-sex couples.
  Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Witney used the word "love". I think that that word needs to be introduced to this debate with some vigour. Same-sex couples, male or female, have the same deep love for each other as other couples. I do not argue that when we fall passionately in love at 16, that love will sustain us throughout our lives; I have made such errors myself, as I am sure have other hon. Members. We cannot denounce one sort of love as less valuable than any other. For the person who loves, love is an absolute feeling. To deny people that love would be criminal in itself.
  In supporting children in their burgeoning sexuality—exploring as they do, often tentatively, how to develop their relationships, how to speak to people to whom they are attracted, and what experiments are safe—I would not want anyone's child not to feel free to approach a parent or guardian, or someone with whom they feel safe, to discuss how to go forward.
  Laura Moffatt: As one mother to another, I am sure that if we were going to act on our prejudices, we would say that our love is so fierce for our children that we would not want them to have anything to do with the same or opposite sex until they were 30—but that is not a reasonable response or a reasonable love. We would not want our children to grow up like that. Does my hon. Friend agree that what comes from within sometimes has nothing to do with how our society best moves forward or with how we ensure that our children are best protected?
  Kali Mountford: I have often wished that my children would wait until they were 30 or even 45 because I want to protect them from any mistake in their choice of partner or in having children at an early age. It is reasonable for a mother to feel that, notwithstanding the fact that one does not want to accept that one has reached such an age. If we truly love our children, we want them to have the best from relationships that they can possibly have. That means that we sometimes have to accept them as sentient beings, capable of making their own decisions and choices. We must accept that their feelings are valid, even if we would wish that they were not as they are. We may fear for children when they choose same-sex partners because we know the prejudice that they will encounter in daily life. If as parents, or as a society, we denounce them and deny them the support that they need, what a difficult life we impose on them. That leads to the traumas that the hon. Member for Witney described, and the possibility of facing suicidal choices.
  Can people go on denying themselves as people and conform to some social view? If ever there was a debate where the personal and the political, the public and the private, were brought together, this is it. Here we have

  57
  Parliament making statements and pronouncements on our most intimate feelings and on the most intimate ways in which we conduct ourselves in our public and private lives.
  Whatever our children's sexuality, we would all want to make distinctions about how they operate in their sexual lives. We certainly do not want too many public demonstrations of sexuality, because in the normal run of a day's events, that is not appropriate behaviour. However, it is bizarre to believe that someone who has a preference for a partner of the same sex is likely to be more demonstrative in public, more promiscuous and more offensive than someone who prefers a partner of the opposite sex. I have often had occasion to view the passions of teenagers displayed in public places and I have thought such behaviour inappropriate. If it were a child of mine, I would admonish that child, saying, "That is something to be done in private, my dear." However, I have never had occasion to admonish a same-sex couple for that sort of behaviour.
  The very fact that same-sex couples keep their affections secret strikes me as sad. Society already denounces their relationships to such an extent that even to hold hands in the street is difficult for same-sex couples, regardless of how much they love each other; whereas for heterosexual couples quite extraordinary behaviour in the most public of places appears to be perfectly acceptable. There is a real contradiction in the value our society attaches to different sets of couples.
  The crucial word in all of that has to be love, and if we think about love, we must think about compassion. Some hon. Members have deeply held religious feelings, but I would point out that all the world's major religions about which I have read are based on compassion and love. Although interpretations of those religions vary—I accept that people hold different views on the teachings of all the world's religions, not only Christianity—I urge hon. Members to look again at their religious values and beliefs, for they are saying something sad about civilisation as a whole if they are without compassion.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady is making a thought-provoking speech. In the course of that speech, will she set out her view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) set out his, on the practical effects of equalisation?
  Kali Mountford: I had hoped to come to those remarks later. Everything we do has practical effects, and the law as it stands has practical effects. One of those practical effects is prejudiced bullying, resulting in the state of mind of individuals who are denounced reaching the point where they conclude that they have to commit suicide. Sadly, suicide is not a rare event in the homosexual community. The incidence is especially high in the younger age group, whose members are not emotionally ready to deal with such prejudice being heaped on them at a tender age. For such an overwhelming social view and the weight of the law to be dumped upon a mere child is heavy indeed.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: What does it say about the state of mind of a 16 or 17-year-old child—I use the word child deliberately—that he would commit suicide rather than wait 18 months or two years until his act was perfectly
  58
  legal? What does that say about his vulnerability and about his suitability to engage in any sort of sexual relationship?
  Kali Mountford: It would be extraordinary if all individuals had to be psychologically tested before being allowed to commit any sexual act. If we were in that position—with so much hatred being heaped upon us by the people who were prejudiced against us, or being subjected to the indifference of society as a whole to our love and feelings—we might conclude, as some people do, that suicide was a rational act, because of our fears about how our life would unfold and because of society's lack of acceptance of our feelings for others. How we love another individual is such an intrinsic part of our humanity that for society to denounce it is far too great a burden to impose, not only on 16 or 17-year-olds, but on anyone at any stage of his or her life. Suicide is not an act committed only by homosexuals. My point is that such denunciation is too much of a burden to place on young people, because it can lift the threshold of despair to such a level that suicide is a more likely choice.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked about practical effects, and we have not fully investigated that subject. One practical effect of equalisation would be the opening up of society as a whole to greater acceptance of one individual by another. That effect is a valid aim in itself. By basing our society on compassion and love, and by being supportive of individuals and not threatening them, we remove one criminal act, which means that police time can be spent on matters more fruitful than investigations into the private behaviour of individuals whose actions are of concern to no one but themselves. We must stop pretending that the law as it stands offers protection to the individual. When they fall in love, people do not necessarily require our protection, whether or not they form a same-sex couple. What they need is protection that allows them to investigate their sexuality in private, which brings us to the root of the problem.
  We started the debate by discussing choice and preference, but I contend that no choice is made, other than that of a particular partner. Our sexuality is an intrinsic part of ourselves—I believe that it is intrinsic at the time we are born. I know that there is debate about whether or not an individual's sexuality is fully developed by the age of 11, 13, or 16, but there is physical evidence to suggest that our sexuality is determined while we are still in the womb. There is plenty of evidence from family groups that suggests that sexuality is a genetic trait. That evidence is so strong that it is daft to pretend that, somehow and at some point, we can be lured into a type of sexuality that is against our nature. It is as ridiculous as saying that our eye colour, which is determined at birth, can be changed at the age of 16 without the aid of contact lenses. I cannot change my eye colour from blue to brown; nor can I change my sexual orientation. I cannot accept that we can be lured away from our nature.
  That is not to say that people do not need protection from sexual predators. That is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, even though I do not want the debate on the age of consent and the acceptance of individual sexuality to be confused with

  59
  arguments that homosexuals are more likely to be predatory, to be paedophiles, to commit lewd acts in public, or to be promiscuous.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I have just heard an hon. Member say, from a sedentary position, "They are." Perhaps my hon. Friend can help that person by referring to some of the evidence quoted by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), to the effect that, as a proportion of the population, paedophilia is far more prevalent among heterosexuals.
  Kali Mountford: I did not hear the remark to which my hon. Friend refers, but he is quite right: paedophiles most often prey on young girls. Although there is some evidence that young boys are preyed on, it is often young girls who need our protection most. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw for raising the issue, because it changes the scope and content of the debate from consent and the acceptance of homosexuality as valid to how we as a society should be acting and how we should be protecting people—taking account of individuals' circumstances—not trying to police sexuality, which is what is happening at present.
  If the Bill is passed, those who prey on young people and exploit their blossoming sexuality will have to change their behaviour. We shall have recourse in law to challenge that behaviour and do something about it. All too often, society has viewed the issue upside down and sought simply to prevent people's legitimate activities and loving relationships, as if that would somehow have an impact on the sort of illegitimate activity that has been mentioned.
  The example has been cited of a young person who might want to get on in their career and of someone else using their more powerful position to exploit that fact. In this example, the senior person—possibly a teacher or boss—might say, "I'm senior to you, and if you want to get on or see your talent nurtured, it would be a good idea to have a relationship with me." Quite often, such activity might even seem legitimate to the young person. Blinded by their passion for their art or craft, or possibly by their passion for the other person, they might not recognise the exploitative nature of such a relationship—and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw for raising that particular point.
  I have represented much older women who had been exploited by their bosses and who realised at a later date what had happened. They found that they had no recourse in law to do anything about it. To me, the issue is not one of age or acceptance of someone's sexual orientation but one of how we as a society accept the exploitative nature of some relationships and the loving nature of others. There is a distinction: to blur the two does a huge injustice to people who simply want a mutually consenting relationship.
  To judge from their sedentary comments and their interventions, it seems that some hon. Members have a very confused attitude towards sexuality overall. All prejudice is based on fear, often fear of the unknown or, in this instance, fear of someone making unwelcome approaches. What I would say to those people is similar to what the hon. Member for Witney said. I would say,
  60
  "Examine your conscience and your feelings." Prejudice based on fear and ignorance does no service to the law. The law should be written on and upheld by facts and evidence. There is no evidence to support the disparity in the law for those who prefer same-sex partners, yet there is room in the law to say that exploitative relationships should be denounced wherever they are found and that there should be recourse to the law to deal with them. I have some reservations about the Bill because it seems to continue that confusion.
  Going back to what I said earlier about nurturing and motherhood, I would dread to think that a child of mine might be preyed on by an adult in the formative years and that that child would feel that there was nowhere to go to deal with the dreadful sense of inadequacy that arises from having been used and abused. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw mentioned many of the famous cases concerning children in local authority care. In Committee, I should like to explore further the relevant part of the Bill because I am concerned about those individuals, mostly women, who, even under the Bill, would still find themselves exploited but would have no redress. In his closing remarks, perhaps the Minister will be able to remind me of where in law such women can seek redress.
  In recent years, we have heard of many high-profile cases involving, for example, stalking, to which the Government responded admirably and introduced a new law. Exploitative relationships certainly occur in the workplace. The ones I am talking about took place when I was a trade union activist, representing members who had been exploited in the workplace. In my view, no exploitative relationship is acceptable. I am glad that we are taking steps to deal with that aspect of some people's sexuality. However, it is a part of the Bill that needs more consideration.
  I asked at the beginning what sort of society we want and what values we are going to uphold. For me, equality, both before the law and in society, is an absolute. The House turns its back on equality at its peril. Opposition Members have cited examples of polls taken in many and varied ways, involving different questions asked at different times. They used these polls as evidence to say that the public do not want change. I would challenge that because of the way some of the polls were conducted, but I would also challenge the House to consider its position at this moment in history, and to consider how it can take a lead in changing society's views.
  Very often, the House is at odds with public feeling. That is not a reason or an excuse to do nothing. Much of this debate has centred on morality and what we consider morality to be. A society that excludes people, whether it is one to 500,000 or 500,000 to 1 million, on spurious grounds is not a civilised society. If we reject the Bill, in years to come we will look back and wonder why we did not take the opportunity to move forward. Doing nothing is not an option. If we do nothing, progress in accepting each other as equals will be knocked back. We will be saying that we are continuing down a reactionary road, a road that I do not want to travel. It is my contention that in years to come the public will not wish us to have travelled it either. My constituents certainly do not wish me to do so.
  I shall not share the contents of my postbag with the House, but I shall mention just one of my constituents who has written to me. He is in education at the moment,

  61
  but feels that there is no future for him as things stand. He feels isolated and he feels that if we miss this opportunity, we will be denouncing him personally. He does not deserve to be denounced and I, for one, will not denounce him.
  6.20 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There is a daring principle held by those who reject the morality of the Bible that a nation can be morally sound without obedience to God's commandments. That principle is directly hostile to the experience of all nations. That morality can exist without conformity to God's law is destitute of both proof and probability. The phenomenon of morals without religion has never been witnessed in any nation in the past and will not be witnessed in the future.
  Those who want to destroy standards and lower safeguards can easily apply the label of morality to their principles, but when they advocate those principles, their real objective is to get rid of morality and religion. This nation has a soul and a conscience, but it has no eternity. Every person in this Chamber has a soul and a conscience and every person has eternity to face. We shall all give account of ourselves to almighty God at the end of the day, but nations are judged in time for their policies, their moralities, their violence and their crimes.
  What of the great nations of the past—the dominant nations that led the world, controlled destinies and became the great empires? What of Babylon? What of Persia? What of the Greek kingdom? What of the great Roman empire? What destroyed them? One has only to read the history books to realise the debris that they left because they gave themselves over to the very things that pervert society and take it down a road that has only ruin at its end. The House very well knows that there is no history book that does not record the ruin of nations because of their departure from morality, truth and righteousness. Judgment will come in time, but it would be far better for us, as legislators, to try to avert such judgment coming upon this nation.
  When the Home Secretary opened the debate, he referred to Europe. What Europe does today, the House will have to do tomorrow. There is no doubt about that. We can see that Europe is moving fast towards lowering the age of consent. Already, in Denmark, the age of consent is 15; in Finland, it is 15; in France, it is 15; in Italy, it is 14 to 16; in Spain, it is 12 and in Sweden, it is 15. Does the House really think that it will stand against the force of legislation from Europe on this matter?
  We in Northern Ireland know what happened to our laws. It is perfectly clear that in Northern Ireland, for once, all the parties agreed that the age of consent should not be lowered, but it will come under the axe. [Interruption.] I do not know why anyone would laugh when we consider that one nation in Europe has lowered the age of consent to 12. That nation should hide its head in shame.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to hear that the age of consent in Spain is not strictly 12. There is a provision whereby children between the ages of 12 and 16 will be prosecuted only if their parents complain about their relationship. That is not the same as saying that the age of consent is 12, and it does not
  62
  suggest that we must follow that example. The argument is not that we follow Europe. Sin, according to the hon. Gentleman's terms, is no more rife in other parts of Europe than it is here and it need not be rife here if we modernise and equalise our laws.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should be very clear about Spain because in Spain, as he knows, and as a document supplied to me by the Library says,
  "there is no statutory age of consent. In general … sexual relations are not penalised from the age of 12."
  To say that the House will not follow Europe is absolutely wrong. The House must follow Europe because power will rest in Europe.
  It is perfectly clear that across Europe—I have witnessed this since the first elections to the European Parliament—the edge of prosecution for certain criminal offences is being dulled. Countries increasingly roll back the laws of the land and remove the criminality from some offences. That is a movement that is most dangerous for us.
  We have heard tonight, and rightly so, of the need for compassion and love, but parents feel that our actions will increasingly affect their children. In other words, their children are potential victims who are being targeted. In the House today I was given some propaganda published by Outrage! that makes it clear that children should be questioning their teachers. It says:
  "You have the right to know"
  and asks:
  "Why don't your teachers tell you the truth?"
  That undermines teachers' integrity and challenges their accuracy. The purpose of that document is to target young people and children. No parents with compassion and love—or, in other words, intolerance of evil—want their children to be targeted. Do we want that? Is that the aim of the House tonight? When we consider what is happening in Europe, we should be strengthening, not pulling down safeguards.
  I know that there are many religious arguments on this matter. In such a debate, it is usually said that the Bible may make strong statements in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament. That, of course, demonstrates ignorance of the New Testament, which is equally strong in its denunciation of what the Bible states is not normal practice, but abnormal practice and perversion. We need to face up to that if we are to be honest about the matter. This is a solemn subject because it affects our children and our children's children.
  The House would do better not to follow those who agitate that we should lower the age of consent because even they must admit that public opinion is not with them. We should safeguard our children and our future. We can do so only by sticking to the principles of true morality, which are found in the 10 commandments of God's word.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Two remarkable speeches have been made from the Opposition Benches. One was of the politics of tolerance, enlightenment and compassion, a politics which rarely dares to speak its name in the Conservative party, and one, which we have just heard, of the politics whose name is all too often spoken in Northern Ireland. I welcome very much the

  63
  speech by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). I hope that he is glad, as I am, that we will give this modest piece of legislation—I would not elevate it to the importance that he did—a Second Reading under a Labour Home Secretary, just as 30 years ago, another Labour Home Secretary, now Lord Jenkins, took the first steps in this direction.
  By contrast with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—I was not sure from his Uriah Heepish speech, in which he seemed to want to be nice to the gay community but terrified of saying no to the opinion polls, how he intends to vote—I shall say which way I shall vote. I shall vote in support of the Bill.
  I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Mrs. Keen), who have given the lie to the widespread thesis propagated by commentators that Back Benchers have no influence. This major piece of legislation, which has been worked out in considerable detail by Ministers and officials, is taking up parliamentary time to become law because my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, who I think described himself in debates on the Queen's Speech as Compo, but would be very much one of the younger members of the "Last of the Summer Wine" team, dug in his heels, and because my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth very bravely stood up in the House, drawing very much from her family experience, to do something that brought her opprobrium from some at the time. The House should note that.
  I shall vote for this Bill for three simple reasons. First, the law is cruel and also an ass. As far as I can see from the very complex columns of figures in the document on this measure provided in the House of Commons Library, there have been no more than five convictions for crimes involving people between the ages of 16 and 18 in the past two years. A law that has become out of date perhaps needs revision. Secondly, I was struck the other day to learn that the British Army still recruits boy soldiers. If we can send young men under the age of 18 to die for Britain and ask them to shed their blood for our country, we can allow them to express their sexuality in their private lives.
  Mr. James Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating a reduction of the age at which cigarettes and alcohol may be purchased to 16, or is he happy that young men can go to war—possibly giving their lives—at the age of 16, as he correctly said, but are not allowed to have a pint of beer and a cigarette afterwards?
  Mr. MacShane: That remark is not worthy of a debate which, on the whole, so far, has been conducted fairly seriously on both sides of the House.
  Thirdly, the point that has most influenced my opinion is that, as a parent of three girls and one boy who have not yet reached the age of 16, I find it preposterous that, whatever their sexuality, the three girls may do as they wish once they reach the age of 16 without facing criminal sanctions, but should my son declare himself gay or become, or express himself as a gay, he could face
  64
  criminal sanction. As a parent, I find it unacceptable that the law should say yes to my daughters, but mean that I would have to visit my son in prison.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to develop some points.
  I make such remarks to explain why I shall vote as I will. It is illogical and preposterous that such discrimination is still written into our law. Having made that point, I want Ministers, who have voted for compassion and taken a libertarian and tolerant road—I applaud them for it—to ask themselves whether there is not more that we as a Government and a House can do to protect children. A boy or a girl, a young man or a young women, is very often still in a state of childhood at the age of 16.
  We are seeing the relentless commercialisation, sexualisation, privatisation and, indeed, politicisation of childhood in our society. The best conclusion that we can draw from this debate and in passing the Bill is to commit ourselves as parents and elected Members of Parliament to do more to protect the family. This measure does not in any way reflect negatively on the new political imperative, which I feel strongly, to do more to protect the family. That cuts across left and right. Let no one from any party claim any monopoly on wisdom in that regard.
  The commercialisation and privatisation of childhood is derived from the fact that, non-stop for the past 20 years, we have increased and strengthened the concept of the individual at the expense of the collective—the family is above all a collective community. In the labour market, for example, we have allowed complete freedom. Every person, notably women, has been encouraged—almost obliged due to low pay and lack of adequate protection for the family—to go out to work. We have undermined family life through an economic libertarianism, which has done so much damage.
  We all applaud to the skies the role of the internet and of electronic commerce, without noticing that the main driving force on the internet at the moment is pornography—very often paedophiliac pornography. Each year, £2.5 billion is made in Hollywood from pornographic films. Anybody whose children log on to the internet, despite the gateway protection offered by service providers, will see how quickly paedophile messages come through. In this area, the libertarian approach, the economic anything-goes, the idea that the individual can do what he or she wants, must be balanced with a social obligation to stop the internet being a paedophile's paradise.
  The hon. Members for Witney and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to the problem of advice on sexual education that is given to schools. I wish that the hon. Member for Witney had been present in the previous Parliament, when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), formerly the right hon. Member for Peterborough, as a Minister in the Department of Health, tore up and threw out of the window a very modest sex education manual because the Daily Mail told him to. He pandered to the worst reactionary prejudices in our society.
  To paraphrase the hon. Member for Witney, the problem with sex is not whether it is gay sex or so-called straight sex, but whether it is safe sex; sex in a context of

  65
  advice and eduction and sex within a loving relationship. I say to my hon. Friends, one of whom is a Minister in the Home Office following his promotion from the Department of Health, that, when our turn comes to provide adequate sex education for our children, let us not buckle under the pressure of the reactionaries on the Opposition Benches or those who write in many of our newspapers, who fill their colour magazines and feature pages with semi-paedophiliac adverts for clothes and other goods, which sexualise and trivialise our young people.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, especially about the advice that he would give his young children as they grow up. How does he explain the fact that AIDS is far, far more prevalent among men than among women, and is almost unknown among young people? How does he advise his children about practices that may lead them—as they do to men especially, in the age group between 20 and 25—to a very serious health risk?
  Mr. MacShane: I advise the hon. Lady to spend a long time in Africa, and then return. There she will find that the problem of AIDS is not confined to gay men.
  I almost regret having mentioned my children at the start of the speech, but it was on a subject about which I feel passionately. Hon. Members who pray in aid their children open themselves to the newspaper treatment—children of hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced this. The cheap way that much of the press gets at us as MPs is by using our children against us.
  I conclude by extending an invitation to Ministers. I start by referring to a nice quotation by the Home Secretary. I do not know whether it was in last night's television documentary on the occupants of the Home Office; I confess that I recorded that and watched "The Scarlet Pimpernel". Now and then, we must have a moment off politics.
  "You seek him here, you seek him there, you seek that Jack Straw everywhere." He is a fine Home Secretary and will render great service to our country, but he said that discussing the politics of families was like "walking on eggshells". One senses, across the party divide, the clear tension between what one might call the spirit of 1968—the libertarian, the individualistic, the "anything goes" spirit—and the instincts of those who now believe that preserving and strengthening the family must have a greater priority than ever it was afforded under the previous Government, when their economic policies, their labour market policies, their destruction of traditional male breadwinner policies and their fiscal policies did so much to undermine the family.
  I invite the Home Secretary to get off the eggshells. I invite him not to worry too much about opinion polls or focus groups. A politics that is committed strongly to backing the family in fiscal policy, labour market policy and schools policy will command support in the House and in the country.
  Tonight we shall vote on a necessary measure to relieve all parents of all children of both sexes of the preposterous notion that what their daughters might do is legal, but that what their sons might choose to do, if that be the case, is a crime. It will thus be a relief for parents and a modest contribution to family life, but there is far, far more to be done in that direction.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: The result of tonight's vote is clear. The House will vote for the Bill—and, as in every other free vote that has ever come before the House, I shall be on the losing side. Whether it is on abortion, divorce, capital punishment or hunting, I always seem to find myself on the losing side, but that does not shake my resolve. When I heard the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) speak about all the rather naughty, although pleasurable, things going on in Babylon, my determination wavered for a second, but I shall hold true to what I believe in, and I shall vote against the measure tonight, for clear reasons.
  My first reason for voting against the measure is the fact that this vote will undoubtedly send the wrong message to the country, whatever hon. Members may say. There have been some good speeches, notably—although I did not agree with it—the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), although I do not know whether it is necessary to take 40 minutes to make one's point. I shall try to speak for a slightly shorter time.
  I believe that the measure will send the wrong message, for the following reason. I know that it is not popular in this place to talk about opinion polls—we consider the idea that we simply respond to what opinion pollsters say to be bad taste—but, that aside, let us ignore the fact that every opinion poll says that 70 per cent. of the country will disapprove of what we are doing tonight. Let us not talk in terms of statistics and figures. Let us just think what ordinary people—people like us—who have children really want.
  What those people want, surely, is that their children grow up and start a family, in the way that they did, and bring up children in a loving environment at home. I think that, when those people learn the result of tonight's debate, they will feel that Parliament has betrayed them, and they will feel that Parliament has decided that there should be a moral equivalence between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when, last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), myself and one or two others tabled the amendment that the then No. 2 Minister at the Home Office—now Secretary of State for Wales—agreed to, we were told that there were to be proper and adequate safeguards for those aged 16 to 18? Does he agree with me, as a fellow practising lawyer, that two years is by no means an adequate sentence? The offence of indecent assault carries a sentence of 10 years, but the offence of incest carries a sentence of only two years—there has been a judicial eruption about that—while other graver sexual offences carry much more serious sentences.
  Mr. Leigh: I agree with that point. Moreover, apparently, the Home Office has accepted that there will be very few prosecutions under the Bill. I may come to that in a moment, but I was making some general points of principle.
  Parliament will vote for the measure—Parliament could vote for anything that it wanted; it could vote that there are 400 days in the year—but the public will not accept that there is a moral equivalence between those two sorts of behaviour. I know that those who promote the measure feel very strongly about these things, but perhaps they should accept that.

  67
  Why do the public reject that moral equivalence? There is, I think, engraved on us a deep moral sense of what is right and wrong. Although we are no longer a Christian—or even a fundamentally religious—society, much of what we believe comes from that religious and moral foundation. Moreover, if one considers the teachings of any of the great spiritual leaders of the past 2,000 years—if one reads the Koran or the sacred writings of the Sikhs or the Hindus, let alone of the Christian religion—one sees that there is an unanimous viewpoint.
  I say to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) that, of course, all those religions stress the need for compassion. Every Member of Parliament is appalled by homophobic behaviour; every Member of Parliament believes in toleration of those who may enjoy or believe in a different life style; but every one of those great world religions is absolutely clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that—for very good reasons—homosexual behaviour is wrong, and that it degrades society. Although the House sometimes giggles when the hon. Member for North Antrim stands up, because he speaks in a very old-fashioned way—an absolutist way—what he said is right. It does harm society if Parliament sends out this message.
  It does not really matter what we do tonight. The public know in their heart of hearts what is right, and I believe that they are right.
  The well-known phrase that Saint Paul wrote in Corinthians was quite clear. He believed—writing all those years ago—that those who indulged in such behaviour
  "will not inherit the kingdom of God".
  There is no need to emphasise that, because people know that writing well. I mention that in this debate only because a Dutch MP who quoted that well-known phrase was subsequently prosecuted in the Dutch courts, because he was said to be indulging in discriminatory language. I hope that, in this country, we are not embarked on the road that leads to our prosecuting those who quote sacred texts that may be out of fashion—out of tune with current thinking. That is not happening in this country yet, but it has happened in Holland.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend certainly should not be castigated for invoking Christianity, but does he accept that the argument that he is developing appears to be a case against allowing homosexuality at all, rather than specifically, and limitedly, against the terms of the Bill?
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend knows where I come from, and he knows my views. One must compromise. I thought that the law that we had before was perfectly satisfactory. We cannot go back in time. If adults in their 20s, 30s and 40s wish to do something in private, we cannot prosecute them and drag them before the criminal courts. I know that. I am a realist.
  We had a satisfactory compromise. We all agreed that once people were grown up and had firmly decided that they wanted to engage in a certain activity, they were not to be prosecuted for it. Why is it necessary for Parliament to continue to advance against the deeply held religious and moral views of the bulk of society? Why are we doing that? Why is it necessary?
  68
  It is said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, who laboured the point, that the subject is a great moral issue, and that people who express the views that I am expressing are somehow like those who advocated the slave trade. I did not understand his argument. I think that he was trying to say that people who advocate my point of view are just the sort of people who used to oppose legislation that outlawed discrimination on the grounds of race or gender.
  However, our point is entirely different. I shall quote General Colin Powell, the first black chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said:
  "Unlike race or gender, sexuality is not a benign trait. It is manifested by behaviour. While it would be decidedly biased to assume certain behaviours based on gender or membership in a particular racial group, the same is not true for sexuality."
  Our point is that we cannot help our race or gender. If I throw scorn on my hon. Friend because of his race or gender, I am rightly condemned by Parliament, but surely I have a right to condemn something that is not to do with his race or gender, but is manifested by his behaviour.
  What we are discussing is fundamentally a matter of choice. I know that it is argued by many hon. Members that the homosexual gene is inside some people. Of course I accept that. Some of my best friends are homosexuals. [Laughter.] Why do hon. Members laugh? I know from close friends of mine that homosexuality is inherent. It is not something to which they came by chance or by influence after the age of 16.
  We are talking about boys—they are still boys at 16—and girls. Let us get this straight. Let us talk straight language. [Interruption.] That may be an unfortunate phrase. We are talking about men being allowed to bugger boys and girls who are aged 16. Nobody likes speaking such language, but that is what the Bill is about. If Parliament thinks that boys and girls at that age should be treated like that, I do not know what Parliament is coming to.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for laughing. He had just spent some time trying to draw a distinction between homophobia and racism, when he trotted out the same sort of comment that we always heard from racists—"Some of my best friends are black."
  Mr. Leigh: I do not know how that advances the hon. Gentleman's case. I thought that I was advancing a perfectly justifiable argument based on the fact that people can choose to indulge or not to indulge in the activity under discussion. They cannot choose their race or their gender. I therefore say that the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney—who unfortunately is no longer with us, no doubt for good reasons—was fundamentally flawed and was not acceptable.
  Dr. Harris: There is a gaping hole in the hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that it is feasible to discriminate against homosexuals because they choose their behaviour, yet a moment later he said that homosexuality was inherent. On that basis, it would be reasonable to discriminate against a practising Jew, as opposed to one who just happened to inherit that racial characteristic. The hon. Gentleman's entire argument is nonsensical.
  Mr. Leigh: We shall have to agree to differ. I was not trying to take an absolutist point of view. I do not accept

  69
  what is often said by the other side—that homosexuality is always inherent. The hon. Member for Colne Valley said that homosexuality was like eye colour—one was born with it. I have never accepted that it is acquired in the womb, but, for the sake of argument, I will accept that for certain people, homosexuality is inherent, but not for all.
  My point is that the age of 16 is an extremely vulnerable age. It is well known that many young boys go through a narcissistic or a homosexual phase, during which they are easily influenced. Do we, as a Parliament, want to give the message to those young people that, before they are fully mature, while they are still 16 years old, advantage can be taken of them?
  Kali Mountford: I accept the hon. Gentleman's view that a person's sexuality is not necessarily inherent, but how does criminalising behaviour that seems natural to those taking part in it advance our society or the law?
  Mr. Leigh: I agree that it would be worrying if large numbers of mature people in society were engaging in a particular activity, and were criminalised and sent to prison. However, how many 16-year-olds are we sending to prison for engaging in consensual homosexual activity? The answer, of course, is none.
  Let us be realistic about the debate. We are about sending messages. Hon. Members who support the Bill know that in their hearts. The message that they want to get across is that Parliament says that there is no moral distinction between homosexual and heterosexual behaviour. That is what the debate is about, and I accept that the Bill will be passed tonight.
  Once that has happened, the pressure will then shift to a campaign to allow homosexuals to adopt children, for clause 28 to be repealed, and for legal marriage between homosexuals. That is the agenda. It is not just I who say so. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has a little pink, or red, booklet produced by Stonewall, which lists the demands. We should not think for a moment that, once the Bill is passed, the agenda will not move on. The booklet refers to equal recognition for young lesbians, gays and bisexuals in our schools. That is the agenda.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: In addition to the aspirations set out in the booklet, there is literature pre-dating this debate which shows that some people want to reduce the age further, from 16 to 14, and that this is merely the thin end of the wedge. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Leigh: I accept that, for many people, although not for all, that would be the agenda.
  Strangely, even after tonight, the law will still express a view not just on the matters about which we have spoken in the past minute or two, but on the offence that we are discussing. The Sexual Offences Act 1956 refers to homosexuality—buggery—as an unnatural activity. That will remain on the statute book, but of course the young will not read "Halsbury's Statutes". The message emanating from the House will be that there is no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual behaviour.
  A further reason why I oppose the Bill relates to vulnerability. It is said that the Bill will go a long way to redress the law and provide extra protection, but the hon.
  70
  Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has been sold a pup. What we are discussing tonight is a much weaker proposal than what he proposed last year. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, the Home Office, which has been slow in pushing this proposal forward, accepts that there will be only 10 or 15 prosecutions. That point was made in good intervention by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) right at the beginning of our debate. If someone is occasionally in authority, such as a vicar or a scout leader, rather than permanently in authority, he or she will not be covered by this legislation.
  The weakest part of our argument concerns the health risks. I say that because it is not for me to lecture people if they want to indulge in a fundamentally unhealthy activity. If people want to smoke, it is none of my business. People need not listen to me, but they should listen to the Terence Higgins Trust, a body trusted by the homosexual lobby, which says that one in five gay men in London is HIV positive. No fewer than 871 gay men died from Aids in the last recorded year.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: What causes the disproportion in the prevalence of HIV among gay men? I am not talking about Africa, where other factors come into play. What can be the cause be, other than anal sex? Has my hon. Friend or anyone else any idea?
  Mr. Leigh: No. We are now entering a debate that embarrasses many of us. However, it must be said that anal sex is a fundamentally dangerous activity because the Almighty did not design that part of the anatomy for that purpose. Any doctor would say the same. We are passing a Bill that permits that activity. Had Parliament debated 50 or so years ago a Bill that allowed men to bugger 16-year-old girls and boys, people would have thought that the devil was abroad. It may be old fashioned to talk about the devil, but I wonder whether he is lurking somewhere because these proposals are so extraordinary—so totally outwith what the public want. They are designed to increase ill health among the population.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The Bill is always described as "reducing the age of consent", which sounds perfectly acceptable, but has it occurred to my hon. Friend that, if the description were to go on to list the acts in question, that would put a different complexion on the matter?
  Mr. Leigh: We are all too polite to mention such things. We do not like talking about them because we are all embarrassed about sex. If something that an hon. Member did in his past were thrown back at him in this Chamber, he would go bright red in the face. None of us wants to discuss the matter, but let us at least be honest. Let us not hold ourselves up as being morally virtuous, but let us have the courage to say what is right. Just because Members of Parliament stand up in this Chamber and say that adultery or homosexuality is wrong, it does not mean that they never fail; it simply means that they have the courage to stand up for what is right and good. That is why I shall vote against the Bill tonight.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. David Borrow: When Leo Abse's Bill was passed in 1967, I was a grammar school boy in a small town in west Yorkshire. Although I was only in

  71
  my early teens, I was aware of the kerfuffle that it caused. In the subsequent years, like many other young school boys at that time, I had to struggle with coming to terms with my sexuality. During the sixth form and my years at university, I eventually concluded that I was gay, but I knew that, despite the 1967 Act, I was still considered a criminal if I acted on the feelings and instincts that were fundamental to me.
  About 10 years later, in the late 1970s, when I was convenor of the Preston group of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, I went to lobby three local Members of Parliament: Ron Atkins, then the hon. Member for Preston, North, who is still a friend and colleague—I served for 10 years as a councillor with him in Preston; Stan Thorne, the then hon. Member for Preston, South, who became my MP in 1983 when the boundary changed; and George Rodgers, the then hon. Member for Chorley, whose constituency included the town of Leyland, which is now part of my constituency.
  The positive reaction that I received from those three Members of Parliament led me to believe that it would not be too long before we moved on from the 1967 Act to equality in the age of consent. I did not imagine then that more than 30 years later, the issue would still be unresolved and that it would fall to me to put the case for equality in the Chamber.
  We need the change for a number of reasons, the first and most important of which is equality. No one can argue convincingly that a 16 or 17-year-old male is old enough to father a child, but not to decide whether to have a sexual partner of the same sex. If it is fair to discriminate, for whatever reason, against homosexuality, why does the law discriminate against male but not female homosexuals? The age of consent is not 18 for female homosexuals.
  I want equality between men and women, and between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This proposal is to make the age of consent 16, and I shall support it on the basis of equality. I have yet to hear a valid argument—in this Chamber tonight or several months ago, when I sat through the whole debate, or in the other place in the early summer—for why the existing discrimination should continue.
  The second reason why we should reform the law relates to criminality. As I said earlier in the debate, the existing legislation makes criminals of 16 and 17-year-old males who have sex with members of their own sex. It does not protect them. I wonder whether Conservative Members who have spoken strongly against a change would want to see the existing law enforced if their sons or grandsons were on the receiving end. Only a handful of cases involving 16 or 17-year-olds have been brought to court under the present legislation, and even fewer have resulted in convictions because most people instinctively know that it neither protects nor helps a young person to make a criminal of him at that age.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I put earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), which he signally failed to answer? How will he defend any age of consent that may be agreed today against the arguments of those who want
  72
  it lowered to 15, 14 or even younger, given his argument that no one should ever be "criminalised" for having a relationship below a given age of consent?
  Mr. Borrow: My first point related to equality; I want equality in the age of consent. Criminality is the second point in the argument for reform; the existing law on the heterosexual age of consent protects heterosexuals below the age of consent. Boys and girls under 16 who have consensual sex are not subject to criminal prosecution. If they have consensual sex with a partner above the age of consent, that partner may be subject to criminal conviction, but the law protects heterosexual young people who are below the age of consent.
  One of the flaws in this measure is that it will still leave males under the age of 16 technically open to criminal prosecution in the event of a consensual sexual relationship with someone of their own age.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman asked Conservative Members about the issue of criminality. It is unwise to personalise things in respect of whether one would be concerned about one's son or grandchildren. I have a son, however, and when he reaches the age of 16 I would, of course, want to protect that child as much as possible. If a man aged 40 were to have a homosexual relationship with him, I would want that man to be prosecuted. Indeed, should I have a daughter aged 16, I would be pretty unhappy about a relationship with a man aged 40.
  Mr. Borrow: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. As a father, he feels that a 40-year-old man who had an affair with his 16-year-old daughter would under existing law—which there is no proposal to change—suffer no penalty, although a 40-year-old man who had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old male would suffer a penalty. I want equality, and there is no reason why 16-year-old males need the benefit of protection any more than 16-year-old females.
  I return to the issue of criminality. I wonder what happens day to day—in institutions such as public schools, or on camping trips or trips to youth hostels—when schoolteachers or youth leaders come across young men of 16 or 17 engaged in consensual sex. Parents will occasionally discover their sons in an embarrassing situation. Youth leaders, schoolteachers and parents do not suddenly say about a member of a youth group, their student or their son, "He has been involved in criminal activity, so I'll ring up the local bobbies and get them to come down to arrest him, because that is what he needs." That is not what most people would think was appropriate. For that reason, the number of prosecutions is so low.
  Dr. Lewis: It is zero.
  Mr. Borrow: If it is zero, what is the point of keeping on the statute book legislation that could criminalise 16 and 17-year-old males, but is never used, even though we

  73
  all know that the law is breached and that sexual activity among 16 and 17-year-old males goes on, probably every day of the year, without prosecutions taking place?
  Dr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Borrow: I will take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Lewis: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is surely that he misunderstands the role of the age of consent. The purpose of the age of consent is not to criminalise people below it, but to protect people below it by criminalising the activities of people above it. The fact that nobody below it is prosecuted should reassure the people below it; we do not want to reassure the predators above the age of consent by lowering it.
  Mr. Borrow: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has yet again failed to listen to the debate. The existing law, as defended by him, criminalises 16 and 17-year-old males. That is the law that this House passed; if we do not amend it in the weeks ahead, as it goes through the parliamentary sausage machine, that will remain the situation as we approach the end of this century.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that, although they are certainly criminalised, 16 and 17-year-olds are also prosecuted under this law? We know that in Bolton, a male aged 17 and a half was prosecuted for having consensual sex with his boy friend, convicted and sentenced. Such prosecutions are happening this year and they happened last year. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that they must not be allowed to happen again.
  Mr. Borrow: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members have said that there are no prosecutions or convictions; I am well aware of the Bolton case of the 17-year-old who was prosecuted successfully for having consensual sex, which makes nonsense of some of the comments from Conservative Members.
  Thirdly, we should make a change because of the extent to which the existing law helps to stigmatise young homosexual men, makes their lives more difficult, encourages prejudice and hostility and makes it more difficult for them to get on with their lives. Reducing the age of consent to 16 would send to those young men the important message that they have a valued place within our society and a role to play, rather than the message that they are inferior beings, as some Conservative Members may want to show.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Borrow: I shall take one more intervention.
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that, to some degree, homosexuals aged 16 are stigmatised and currently can be criminalised. If the Bill is passed, homosexuals aged 15 years and 11 months would similarly be stigmatised and, as he correctly described, would also be criminalised. Does he accept that his argument favours the removal of any age of consent whatever? If his objections to criminalising 15-year-olds for homosexual activity are to be believed, presumably he
  74
  will have to vote against the Bill on the ground that it would criminalise exactly the people who he wants to be non-criminals?
  Mr. Borrow: The question of prejudice and stigma is why it is so important to have an equal age of consent. That message of equality sends to young men the right signal—the important signal—that they are not lesser beings because of their sexuality. I shall come to points that have been made in the debate, in a number of documents and in meetings that I have had in my constituency about the Bill.
  The fact that opinion polls show strong opposition among the population at large to changing the age of consent was mentioned earlier. I have had a number of meetings with constituents who have argued that I should vote against the Bill. They have generally done so on the basis that they want to protect young men. They somehow believe that the existing law protects young men and that changing it would mean that young men were no longer protected. The existing law criminalises young men; it does not protect them. If it were enforced rigorously, rather than protecting young men, it would bring many of them through the courts.
  Part of the issue of protection rests on the basis that some young men are not entirely sure about their sexuality. All the evidence suggests that most gay men have their first sexual experiences at about the same age as most heterosexual young men—if anything, a few months later, but at about the same age, about the age of 16. I have seen various figures, ranging from just under 16 to just under 17, but statistics are statistics.
  Young men who may be unsure of their sexuality are not helped by having their private sexual goings-on dragged through the courts and publicised. It may well be that some young men will engage in same-sex activities at the age of 16 and 17, and will end up happily married with kids, feeling that they are heterosexual later in life. I must tell Conservative Members that I know plenty of men and women who felt that they were heterosexual, or ought to be, at 16 and 17, and who now have children as a result.
  On both sides of the divide, there is an element involving a small number of people whose sexuality is not definite as they grow up. We must ask ourselves whether criminalising young men for engaging in same-sex relationships at the age of 16 and 17 makes it easier or more difficult to go through a period of uncertainty. I am certain that it makes it more difficult. I am certain that, if I asked parents in my constituency whether, if they discovered their 16 or 17-year-old son in bed with the lad next door, it would be a good idea to call the police and take them through the courts, the answer would be, "No. We must support and help our son. If he ends up being gay for the rest of his life, we will support him, and if it is a phase, we will help him through that". No instinct would lead a parent to say that it was a good idea to bring in the law.
  Another argument that has been advanced relates to health. I have received a leaflet from the Christian Institute entitled "Gay Pressure on the Young", which includes many claims that the Bill should not proceed because of the higher prevalence of AIDS among gay men, as against the rest of the community. AIDS is a disease, which does not discriminate on the basis of

  75
  whether people are gay or heterosexual. In north America and Europe, most transmission has been among gay men; worldwide, the vast majority has been in the heterosexual community.
  If documents such as that seek to prove that the fact that the prevalence of AIDS in the United Kingdom is greater among gay men is something to hold against gay men, and something with which to foster prejudice against them, will they use the same arguments against black people, on the basis that most cases worldwide, and the areas of highest prevalence of AIDS in any community, are in the black African community—particularly east Africa? Those cases occur through heterosexual transmission.
  Mrs. Gorman: That point was made earlier in the debate. It is a fact that, where AIDS is quite common among females as well as males, it is because anal sex is practised as a form of contraception. It is practised widely in Africa and extremely widely in Romania, which explains the prevalence of AIDS there. I do not want to mention all the biological details, but those are the facts.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it is better for the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) to deal with one intervention before he deals with another.
  Mr. Borrow: I do not know on what basis the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made her comments, but my understanding is that transmission in Africa is by vaginal rather than anal sex, and I know of no basis for what she has said.
  May I make a general point? I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS and, in the early summer, spent several weeks taking evidence on a number of parliamentary hearings to produce a report entitled "A Strategy for AIDS". I hope that it will form the basis of discussions that are currently taking place in Government.
  The all-party group included parliamentarians who voted against the proposal to lower the age of consent last summer, but the unanimous finding of all who were present for the hearings was that the existing age of consent—the age of 18—constituted a barrier to the obtaining of proper health information and promotion by young gay men. That finding has been backed by my hon. Friends who have spoken earlier today, and by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward); it has also been supported by the British Medical Association, and by many other medical organisations and children's charities.
  With the age of consent at 18, it is very difficult for many who are involved in the provision of advice on sexual health to give that advice to 16 and 17-year-old males under the age of consent, whether they are teachers, youth workers or medical health workers. I do not argue that we should change the law because the all-party group on AIDS felt that the existing age of consent constituted a barrier to getting information across. I am saying to those—in the House or outside—who are using AIDS and all the issues surrounding it as a reason for opposing this measure that there is no foundation for their stance. I believe that the employment of such statistics feeds
  76
  prejudice—the sort of prejudice that I remember in the mid-1980s, and the sort of prejudice that I thought and hoped had eased in the last 10 years.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Can we deal once and for all with the question of transmission in sub-Saharan Africa? HIV and AIDS are spread in sub-Saharan Africa predominantly through vaginal sexual intercourse. They are spread more easily there than in the west because of poverty and the prevalence of other sexually transmitted diseases, which make the transmission of HIV much easier.
  Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As for the issue of AIDS generally, I listened carefully to the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is not present now. He was at the heart of Government when the AIDS epidemic started, and was responsible for many of the measures that were adopted then. I hope that, when the debate ends, he will give some thought to the evidence that is available about the way in which AIDS prevention is made more difficult by his support for the existing age of consent. I hope that he will think about that before he decides how to vote.
  I hope that, as the right hon. Gentleman has used experience in terms of the AIDS epidemic to support his position, in the light of information of which he was obviously not aware at the beginning of the debate, he will reconsider his position and, instead of supporting the view that 18 is the right age, accept that all the information and evidence on AIDS goes the other way and supports a lowering of the age of consent.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not wish to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech unduly, but what he has said contradicts the facts. The same argument was deployed in 1994 when the decision was taken to reduce the age of consent from 21 to 18. It was then said that doing so would enable young people to have advice on safer sex and all the rest of it, and reduce the level of HIV infection. The reality was different. Between 1995 and 1996, HIV infections among homosexual men increased by 11 per cent. His argument is completely flawed.
  Mr. Borrow: Having peaked, the number of new HIV infections among gay men is now declining. The number of gay men in the United Kingdom who have the virus or the disease is increasing because treatment has become much more effective, and more and more gay men who have been infected by the virus are living. That has led to an overall increase in the number within the population.
  One or two Opposition Members touched on the Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong. My understanding is that, in both the Catholic Church and Church of England, there is an acceptance that human sexuality is not a matter of choice, but something that people come to learn about themselves.
  It is on that basis that within the Anglican communion—it happens in significant numbers—clergymen who are homosexual by inclination are accepted into the priesthood if they remain celibate. There is an acceptance that gay men have no choice in their sexuality, but the Church, because its teaching is that sex should take place only within marriage and that marriage can take place only between a man and a woman, says that sinless sex can take place only within marriage.

  77
  I accept and understand that argument, but, if the major Churches argue that sex should take place only between a man and a woman within marriage, I am somewhat perplexed that the Churches do not argue that we should bring the criminal law into adultery and into sexual relationships outside marriage. I respect the Churches for holding that position, but I question seriously why, in their submissions to many people—I accept that the Churches are divided on the issue—they argue so strongly that legislation should discriminate and be prejudicial towards gay men. The Churches do not make similar strong arguments against sex between heterosexual couples outside marriage.
  I was brought up as an Anglican. In the past 20 or 30 years, my religious observance has varied according to the extent to which I felt welcome within the church to which I went. At the moment, I feel less than welcome within the Church of England. That saddens me.
  The main reason why hon. Members argue—[Interruption.] We have until 10 o'clock. The main reason why Members argue against a change in the law is because of prejudice.
  Mr. Bermingham: Has my hon. Friend not read the European Court's decision in the Sutherland and Moms case? In reality, there is no argument about the age of consent or homosexuality, legal or not. The argument on the Bill must surely be whether the protection for that group of vulnerable persons between 16 and 18 is adequate.
  Mr. Borrow: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, but the bulk of the correspondence and representations that I have received, and much of the emphasis in the debate, has been on the age of consent, rather than the protection that is afforded to 16 and 17-year-old males and females. There is scope for further discussion on that part of the Bill, but I recognise its importance and the fact that it goes a long way towards dealing with supporters of the existing legislation—rather than the revised legislation—who want to keep the age of consent at 18 on the basis that that protects people.
  The measures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary strengthen the age of consent legislation, but it is important not to view the Bill simply in terms of sexuality. We should recognise that, through these measures, we are protecting both young men and young women from unwarranted sexual attention by whoever.
  I touch on what I think is at the heart of much of the opposition. It centres on the argument that equality of the age of consent will undermine family life. Families are made up in various ways, but every homosexual man or woman is part of a family. Every homosexual man or woman comes from a family, and depends on the love and support within that family. The argument that giving rights to homosexuals undermines the family is totally fallacious.
  Over the past 30 years, there has been a big increase in the number of family breakdowns. I find it difficult to believe that that increase is because more gay men and women are choosing to live openly as gay and to settle down with their partners, rather than, as they would have done 30 years ago, getting married to hide their sexuality, or having a public face as single people, but keeping a part of themselves hidden away, somehow shameful and dark.
  78
  Over the past 20-odd years, I have noticed the extent to which gay men and women have been successful in living a more open life style, building relationships and having partnerships that can, in many cases, last many more years than marriages. I have a significant number of friends who have been in relationships for 30 or 40 years. The Bill and other measures to combat prejudice and remove discrimination against gay people will make it easier for young men and women growing up now to plan and live their lives openly, which was not possible for those who are 20 or 30 years older than me. They will be able to plan long-term relationships and feel that they can play a full and open part in the wider community.
  Contemporaries of mine when I was growing up who did not have as supportive a family as I had were kicked out of their home and ostracised by their family. The same happens now, but not to the same extent. Those young people were treated badly in that way because of the climate of prejudice and hatred. We must send a signal that prejudice and hatred have no place in our society and that everyone has the right and opportunity to play a full part in our community.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that there are some deeply considered views to be put forward in the debate, but I suggest that a little urgency might now be injected into it. A large number of hon. Members still want to contribute, and at the present rate not all of them will succeed in catching my eye. I call Mr. Edward Leigh; I am sorry, Mr. Andrew Robathan. It was not my intention to give the hon. Member for Gainsborough double rations.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I shall be a great deal briefer than the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). As he showed, the Bill is a triumph—a triumph for the persistence of single-issue pressure groups and political correctness. There is no huge demand in the country for a change. We have heard about opinion polls, but I do not want to dwell on them. There are deeply held beliefs on both sides. The only letters and telephone calls that I have received have been from those who oppose the Bill, but I know that I have constituents who would like it to pass.
  I have received several briefings, some of which, from both sides, I have thought erroneous. The best bit of rubbish that I have had arrived this morning from the National AIDS Trust, which said:
  "equalising the age of consent for homosexual sex will have significant health promotion benefits for young gay men … In this sense, an equal age of consent recognises young people's basic right to health."
  I understand that there are strongly held principles involved, but I have to disagree with that.
  I also received a letter this morning from Lady Hayman thanking me for responding to her appeal to give blood, which I did a couple of weeks ago in Leicester. There was a shortage of blood and she wanted a higher profile for the National Blood Service. To those who say that this is not a health issue, I must point out that there is no equality in giving blood. The politically incorrect advice from the National Blood Service says:
  "You should never give blood if you are a man who has had sex with another man".
  No one can say that male homosexual intercourse is judged to be equivalent in health terms.

  79
  I understand the wish of the hon. Member for South Ribble to stress the case for equality. Stonewall's submission opens with the words:
  "Our case is the case for equality."
  That is the core of the argument for changing the law. However, there is no equality between homosexual and heterosexual intercourse. Neither biologically nor physically can the acts be equated. I would add that there is no moral equivalence, but apparently in these morally ambivalent times legislators are not allowed to suggest that an act might be right or wrong.
  We are debating what protection the law should give to children, and what children should be allowed to do. That is not just my opinion, but that of United Kingdom law. The Children Act 1989 says:
  "A child is a boy or girl under the age of 18."
  In international law, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child says that
  "A child means every human being below the age of 18 years."
  It is perfectly reasonable to say children should be allowed to do this or that without being protected, but we should know exactly what we are debating.
  Leaving aside the moral opinion of people like me, and even the teachings of Christianity and other religions, the Government seem to be ignoring even their own focus groups. Opinion polls suggest that between three fifths and three quarters of people in this country do not want the age of consent to be reduced. It would be easy to condemn such a proportion of the population as homophobes, but on this occasion the ordinary British public show a great deal of common sense.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to make a case based on public opinion. He said earlier that there was no huge public demand for the reform—an assertion which in any case I dispute. Would he say that the lack of a huge public demand for the abolition of bear baiting or public hanging meant that those measures should not have been enacted? The hon. Gentleman is in error when he talks about a vast tide of public opinion in this country against the reform. A Gallup poll in July last year for The Daily Telegraph—The Daily Telegraph, note—found that 42 per cent. believed that homosexual acts were morally equivalent rather than morally inferior to heterosexual acts. Only 39 per cent. disagreed. Whatever else the Great British public think about the issue, they are not giving carte blanche to the hon. Gentleman and his argument.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman, in his rather long intervention, tries to put words into my mouth. I did not say that there was a great groundswell of opinion against the measure; when asked, however, people almost invariably say that they do not think that the law should be changed. People to whom I have talked and those who respond to opinion polls do not accept that the two acts are equivalent.
  The general view, and mine—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) may agree with me on this—is that what people get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom is largely their own affair. However, the
  80
  Great British public do not wish to see boys threatened by predatory older men. The hon. Member for South Ribble did not address that. I should be appalled if, when my son is 16, a 40-year-old man seduced him. Surely that is a widely held view.
  It is not homophobic to oppose the Bill. "Homophobe" must be one of the most contrived words to have entered our language recently. Common sense says that there is a difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Society and the law should point that out. By reducing the age of consent, Parliament will be telling young people that there is no difference, which is contrary to logic and biology. That may encourage more of the confused young men, to whom the hon. Member for South Ribble, who is no longer in his place, referred, into homosexual relationships. We will be saying that society is ambivalent on the issue. We should be encouraging all young people to show more self-restraint.
  When I was a child, I used to put money into a box shaped like a house, provided by Barnardos. The purpose was to encourage people such as me, from a relatively privileged background, to help those from less privileged backgrounds. Sadly, Barnardos seems to have abrogated its responsibilities to give guidance to young people—if the quotation that I have from a spokesperson is correct. It says:
  "We find ourselves in the ludicrous situation of handing out condoms to girls who are 16, to heterosexual boys who are 16, but not to gay 16-year-olds".
  It would be better if Barnados encouraged and taught abstinence and self-control in all 16-year-olds in their care. I shall not be giving my son one of those little Barnardos boxes.
  Last year's debate, in which the amendment of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was defeated, revealed the true wishes of the House. I am not sure whether there was a payroll vote, but I note that the Home Secretary voted against the amendment.
  The Government have been let off the hook by the House of Lords, in that they are now introducing an extremely weak exemption clause for teachers and others. Most people outside this House would be appalled at the idea of any teacher having an affair with a child in his care. However, only last year, this House refused to provide such protection for children. I am delighted to say that even the politically correct in the Government baulked slightly at that.
  We hear a lot from the Government about strengthening the family. This Bill does nothing to strengthen the family, as even the most absurd Labour Member must admit. The Bill will further undermine family life. It is bound to be passed tonight, with a large majority of the politically correct. Few outside this place will think that British society will be better as a result.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I propose not to be long. I hope to set an example that others will follow, rather than follow the example that I have been set. The Bill is very simple. Whether homosexuality is good or bad is not the issue; it is not in the Bill. It is decided by Parliament, and by the European courts. What the age of consent should be is not the issue; it is decided by others.

  81
  On 1 January 2000, we become a party to the European convention on human rights. In the case of Sutherland and Morris, the courts have said that a deal must be done, so the one way to stop our law being condemned is to pass the relevant section of the Bill. There is nothing we can do about that. We waste time arguing about it.
  We should be looking at a far more important issue—the protection of the handicapped, the mentally disabled and the youngsters who are in a position where they trust the older persons around them. I was the main supporter of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) last time we debated this issue, and I spoke in the debate. I said then that what mattered was the protection of those in disadvantaged positions who had to take and abide by the rules, guidance, orders and instructions of their elders and betters: the teacher, the scoutmaster, the priest, the vicar, the doctor—I could go on ad nauseam.
  One does not have to be very old to realise that, in the children's homes of this country, exploitation of the young has been rampant over the years. We have never had the guts to admit it. In Cheshire, an inquiry has been going on for ages. Kincora in Northern Ireland is another example. Various public school masters who exploited their children have been prosecuted. There have been examples of exploitation up and down the land—in Leicester, Newcastle and all over the place.
  We are talking not just about youngsters of 10, 11, 12 or 13, but often of 15, 16 and 17. Those of us who tabled the amendment last year sought to protect those youngsters. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I indicated that the Bill proposed a maximum two-year sentence. What are we talking about in terms of the abuse of a child? Anal sex? Rape? Indecent assault? We are talking about all the things that we should never allow a child to suffer at any age. We must never allow a child in a position of dependency to be exploited.
  As a practising lawyer, I have dealt with hundreds of such cases over the years. Time and time again we read of the persuasiveness of those involved. "I will just help you here. Would you like a treat of this sort or that?" It is slimy, miserable and horrible, and it ruins the lives of children not just for a year or two, but for ever.
  Those of us who supported the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill thought that we would achieve something. We cannot beat the law, or the European courts. We cannot stop the reality of equality, but let us protect the vulnerable. In a case of which I am aware—I shall not name names, or say where it is—mentally handicapped children of 16 and 17 were treated to the pictures or a visit to the shopping market. What was the payment? Sex. Can we tolerate that? No.
  The sentence proposed by the Bill in terms of 16 and 17-year-olds will be two years. That means one year, because of time off for good behaviour. The offender will no sooner be tried than he will be out. Is that a deterrent to the paedophile or the slimeball? Not on your life.
  If the offender was prosecuted for indecent assault—with a maximum sentence of 10 years—it would become a deterrent. If he was prosecuted for rape—with a maximum sentence of life—it would become a deterrent. If he was prosecuted for anal sex—with a sentence of 20 years to life—it would become a deterrent. That is how the Bill should have been drafted. Someone who is in a
  82
  position of trust, and abuses that trust by misusing the person in his care or under his control, should be prosecuted for the offence.
  I say to Home Office Ministers that I cannot support the Bill until the proper penalties are put in. When that is done, I will support it. It is not my job to be the moral conscience of this country. I have lost that argument too often in the past, and I know that I would lose it again. I would lose it in the courts today, and we will lose it in the European courts. That argument is over. Now let us protect the children.
  7.56 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: I broadly welcome the Bill. I was one of the six sponsors of the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill which brought the issue of the age of consent to the House. I was proud to be one, just as I am proud now to associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). He made almost all the points that could be made in support of clause 1, and I do not intend to repeat them.
  I warmly endorse everything the hon. Member for Witney said. Indeed, he has done many hon. Members a favour. If they receive letters from constituents on this matter, they can do no better than to associate themselves with his speech and pass it on to their constituents. It was eloquent, and superb in many ways.
  I regret that the measure that I backed was lost in another place, but it was predictable, given the time limits. It was not unreasonable for the other place to express its opinion once, although I disagreed violently with many, if not all, of the arguments made to defeat the views of this House. It was inevitable that it would take more than one pass at the House of Lords to get the measure through. The timing of the original measure was unfortunate, at best, and reckless, at worst, as it did not have the time to go back to the House of Lords to enable them to think again.
  I respect the courage of those in the other place who spoke eloquently in defence of the reduction in the age of consent—particularly the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who made it clear that there were views both for and against the measure from those who described themselves as Christians.
  Given what I am going to say about the need for wider law reform in terms of homosexuality, it may be appropriate at this point—the historic Second Reading of a Government Bill on the age of consent—to pay tribute to people who have campaigned for far longer than I have in support of this move; people like Antony Grey and Allan Horsfall of the Campaign for Homosexuality Equality, the former of whom received an award recently from the gay press for his long campaigning work. When progress is made—I hope for wider progress than the limited measures in the Bill—this legislation will stand as testimony to their campaigning and that of organisations such as Stonewall.
  I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is the Minister in charge of the Bill. He has a proud tradition of working against discrimination against the gay community; that has been well recorded in the gay press and elsewhere. I broadly welcome both parts of the Bill, but I hope that he will accept the few caveats that I have to offer.

  83
  Clause 1, which reduces the age of consent, contains shortfalls that I hope to be able to examine in Committee, and I hope that the Government will accept amendments. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) mentioned the fact that the Bill still criminalises the victim. Clause 1 is a lost opportunity to decriminalise the victim and protect the young.
  The law will still not treat homosexual and heterosexual offences equally, because there is no statutory defence for homosexuals. For heterosexual offences, it can be argued that the accused did not realise that they were committing an offence because they were misled or were not in a position to know the age of the person with whom they were having a sexual relationship; but the Bill makes no such provision for homosexual sex, and that is discriminatory. Gross discrimination also remains in sentencing, and people who are no longer considered guilty of an offence will still be subject to inclusion on the sex offenders register, in a prospective way, from the point of enactment onwards.
  The Bill was an opportunity to make more than the limited, but historic and welcome, change that it makes. The Government were forced to act by the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sutherland and Morris cases, which suggested that if they did not act they would be in breach of the European convention on human rights, to which we are a signatory and which, in a laudable step, the Government incorporated into British law.
  I hope that the Government will take further action; otherwise there may be further instances of Britain being brought before the European Court of Human Rights or being found to be in breach of British law after the incorporation of the convention. I fear that the Home Secretary's declaration that the Bill is compatible with the convention and with the Human Rights Act 1998 will be open to debate, and, on closer scrutiny, I do not believe that it can be sustained.
  Sexual offences law is a complex matter, and I am glad that the Government have issued details of the review, but significant problems remain. The current law and the Bill fail to protect the victim—the young man, in the case of homosexual sex—and he will be a criminal by the very same act that makes him a victim. That may be unique in British law, and it cannot be right if we seek to protect the younger party.
  As Conservative Members have said, perhaps not deliberately, it cannot be right that, if we seek to protect the party who is below the age of consent, the Bill does not contain a simple provision to ensure that that party cannot be prosecuted and criminalised. The Tyrell principle applies to girls; there can be no prosecution of a consenting girl for aiding and abetting under section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which concerns unlawful sexual intercourse, even though there may be cases in which a girl under the age of 16 has been the instigator.
  For there to be equality, and for Britain not to be found once again to be subject to sanction under the European convention and the Human Rights Act 1998, that provision needs to be built in. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made the point that his daughter can do as she pleases at the age of 16 but that
  84
  boys over 16 will still be in fear of criminal sanction even if they are the victim of a crime under the law relating to the age of consent.
  Stonewall says:
  "Simply amending the 1967 Act to replace '18' with '16' would leave this flawed structure"—
  of the differential laws—
  "in place. A gay 15 year old would still be criminalised if he had sex, although of course a 15 year old girl would not."
  Mr. Bermingham: Currently, when a girl under 16 has sexual intercourse with a man under 23, there is that statutory defence—I agree that the same defence should apply for homosexual acts—but there is also a provision in English law that says that one cannot give evidence if one is going to incriminate oneself; so in such a case the young man would immediately be warned by the judge that he need not give any evidence at all. That is his protection.
  Dr. Harris: But in that protection lies, in a sense, protection of the offender. Labour Members have said that if there is fear of prosecution and criminalisation of the victim, that victim is less likely to report the offence. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the protection of minors, and I share that feeling. It is vital to ensure that victims are not criminalised. In the recent case in Bolton, a 17½-year-old who was deemed to be the victim of the sexual relations as the result of which the other men in the case were deemed to be criminals was himself criminalised, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for the same offence.
  I see that the Minister is listening intently, and I hope that he will address that point in his summation. I have had representations on the matter from many outside the House, and I am sure that he has, too. I would support any amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Ribble or others who feel strongly on the point. Protecting the victim from prosecution would be a relatively limited measure and need not open up the whole issue that the Government's review deals with; indeed, I may be moved to seek to amend the Bill myself in that respect, to ensure that the discrimination ends.
  I am concerned about the discriminatory absence of the statutory defence. One might argue the merits of the statutory defence under section 6(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, according to which, if a man under 24 has sex with a girl under the age of consent and did not know that she was so young, a defence can be mounted—whether the court believes him is an issue for the court—but that defence is not available to men prosecuted for consensual homosexual sex with boys under the age of consent under the current law or the law as amended by clause 1.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have been hugely impressed by the hon. Gentleman's grasp of the law. Given that he is a doctor of medicine, can he address some of the concerns that have been expressed by doctors about the dangers to young people from the practice of anal intercourse?
  Dr. Harris: That was not the subject of my remarks, but I will be happy to send the hon. Gentleman copies of speeches made by myself and by other hon. Members on

  85
  the subject. I remind him that I was a member of the British Medical Association council that voted unanimously in favour of equalisation of the age of consent at 16; that council, as I found out on other issues, is generally a conservative body, and it recognised that there were huge health benefits to be achieved by the equalisation of the age of consent and the decriminalisation of consensual sex for young men between 16 and 18.
  That view is shared by many organisations that work with children, as well as the Health Education Authority; the Royal College of Nursing; the Royal College of Psychiatrists; the Royal College of Physicians; and an endless list of medical organisations. I shall certainly send the hon. Gentleman a reference. The provision cannot be opposed on the basis of medical opinion. The arguments deployed against it were refuted many years ago by the World Health Organisation, the American Medical Association and others. That is just one example of how the current law is way behind the times.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: I should prefer not to give way on that matter, as I have other points to make that will be of more interest to the House.
  The third way in which the Bill falls short of equalisation is in its sentencing provisions. Given what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said earlier, I do not want to go into those provisions as there may be confusion in the record, but it is a matter worthy of greater study in Committee to ensure that equality, as opposed to leniency, is achieved.
  My fourth question is one that I have raised before and it has to do with the sex offenders register. During the passage of what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, an amendment was tabled in my name and in the name of hon. Members from all parties. It would have inserted a provision into the Sex Offenders Act 1997, and it stated:
  "Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a person subject to the notification requirements of this Part by reason of an offence which ceases to be an offence after the commencement of"
  another Bill, such as this one, which decriminalises certain acts,
  "shall no longer be subject to those notification requirements after the commencement of those sections."
  I do not believe that that is retrospective legislation. It seems bizarre that the House can deem consensual sex between a 17-year-old and his older boy friend to be legal now, yet can still cause the older party to be placed on the sex offenders register from the moment of the enactment of this Bill. There are hon. Members in all parties, regardless of whether they agree with all my views on equalisation or with my determination to end all discrimination in sexual offences, who feel that there is something wrong with the legislation. I hope that the Government will look at the matter again.
  In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Home Secretary wrote:
  "I should make clear that none of the changes which may be brought forward as a result of either review will be retrospective, and we do not propose any retrospective changes to the scope of the (sex offences) register in respect of equalisation of the age of consent".
  86
  I understand that as far as it goes, but I maintain—and other hon. Members agree—that the provisions of the sex offenders register should not apply prospectively from the time that the offence for which a person is included in the register ceases to be an offence. That would be bizarre. We are not proposing letting people out of prison—that is a separate question—but we are asking whether they should remain subject to the provisions of the sex offenders register. Indeed, I believe that most hon. Members support clause 1 because they do not consider that consenting sexual activity between men over 16, in which there is no abuse of trust by an older person in loco parentis, should ever have been covered by the sex offenders register.
  Again in connection with the Bolton case, two of the men were required to sign the sex offenders register after they were convicted last year of consenting gay sex with a man aged 17 and a half. That man did not complain, was not harassed and opposed the prosecution of the two men. One of them was his boy friend, with whom he had had a long-standing relationship and with whom he now lives. That injustice must be put right, although people who have written to the Home Office have not received the clarification that they sought.
  I now turn to the review of sexual offences law announced today. The Minister may remember that I proposed a new clause to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to get rid of the ludicrous anomaly that exists with regard to the privacy of homosexual sex. As The Pink Paper reported in June 1998,
  "Home Office minister Alun Michael this week announced a wide-ranging review of sexual offences law. The move came just days after a Liberal Democrat MP tabled two further amendments to the Government's Crime and Disorder Bill that could remove more gay inequalities from the statute book".
  I welcomed that review, but I wanted legislation to follow it that would equalise the law and end discrimination within the lifetime of this Parliament. There is nothing in the published remit of the review that guarantees that such legislation will be forthcoming. Lowering the age of consent to achieve equality is crucial, but it is not the only requirement. Many people would hate this Government, who made a manifesto pledge
  "to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists",
  if they stopped at just equalising the age of consent. I hope that the Minister will say, when he responds to the debate, whether he envisages legislation being introduced and whether the terms of the review are meant to address the "unjustifiable discrimination" that exists in our law covering sexual offences such as the offence of gross indecency.
  I could list the anomalies with the sexual offences law, but I shall not detain the House with them today. So far, the Home Office has said only that
  "the law on sexual offences, including the homosexual offences, is much in need of review."
  I think that it is much in need of legislation to amend it. The Home Office added that the law
  "does not meet the needs of modem society."
  I contend that it does not meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights, or of the Human Rights Act 1998, now that it has been incorporated into British law.

  87
  In October 1997, The Independent stated that the age of consent
  "is the last serious piece of legislation that treats homosexuality as a lesser, shameful expression of human love".
  That is not true; it is just one of many of our current laws that do so. In a sense, the first part of the Bill misses an opportunity to put right some of those wrongs. There may be no votes in sexual law reform, but I hope that the Government will not be influenced by fear on this matter and that they will take the opportunity to demonstrate that they are a radical and reforming Administration.
  Finally, I wish to turn to the second part of the Bill and deal briefly with some of my concerns about the scope of the abuse of trust measures. I also want to bring to the House's attention another example—the fifth—of a discriminatory application of the law.
  On 27 July last year, the Home Secretary wrote to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). In the letter, he correctly described how the Government intended to deal with the abuse of trust measures, as proposed by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), when they introduced their Bill. The review that led to clauses 2 to 4 of this Bill was said to concern both young men and young women,
  "and in a non-discriminatory way."
  It did not say that it would concern young men and young women in a non-discriminatory way, which would be taken to mean that there would be equal protection for boys and girls aged between 16 and 18. When I received a copy of the letter, I took the deliberate use of the word "and" in
  "and in a non-discriminatory way"
  to mean that the law would not treat homosexuals separately or more severely.
  However, the Government have decided to include in the Bill exemptions for heterosexuals that are not available for homosexuals. For example, a teacher aged 23 who is married to a student aged 17 cannot be prosecuted, but of course marriage is available only to heterosexuals. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, in response to an intervention I made earlier, recognise that that was discriminatory and state—I hope that I do not misquote him—that he would have no problem if the Government were to acknowledge an arrangement equivalent to marriage in terms of exemption from the law, under which people aged between 16 and 18 could acquire parental consent for a homosexual relationship, as people of that age have to do when they get married. Imperfect though it may be, such a measure would allow the law not to be discriminatory. That is an important point because the Secretary of State is on record as saying, in response to an intervention that I made during our consideration of the Crime and Disorder Bill on 28 July, that the legislation
  "will concern both young men and young women and in a non-discriminatory way."—[Official Report, 28 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 208.]
  The question that produced that response was whether there would be different rules for some heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals.
  The Bill gives rise to several other concerns. The abuse of trust legislation, which I broadly welcome, could be used as a form of blackmail against homosexuals. People
  88
  reporting such a relationship could still be criminalised, as I said earlier. Also, the framing of the Bill is too broad—the National Association of Head Teachers shares that concern. The offence is not restricted to cases in which the abuser is in a position of trust and in loco parentis, but is expanded to include, for example, the 23-year-old male teacher who does something foolish and unprofessional with a consenting 17-year-old sixth former at a school dance, which should be condemned, and who would be subject to the full force of the criminal law in a way that the House would regard as an over-reaction, particularly if there had been no direct educational link between those two people. They may even have had a relationship before either of them came to the school.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that although I have been the only hon. Member to raise those concerns today, there is a view outside the House that the legislation is too wide. I also hope that in Committee those of who feel that that is so will have an opportunity to make those points.
  In conclusion, the Bill is welcome in all its parts, except that clause 1 could have been a little wider and clauses 2 to 4 a little narrower.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Jamie Cann: My speech will be both briefer and less popular than most that I have heard tonight. Essentially, in the Bill we are being asked to accept by the gay lobby—by Outrage! of course, and by Stonewall in a more measured way—that homosexuality is equal in value to heterosexuality in our society. I do not believe that to be the case and, therefore, I cannot vote for the Bill and I shall tell the House why.
  According to my observations, it is a fact that homosexual society is totally centred on a person's sexuality. If I may be forgiven at the age of 52 for saying so, sex counts for 1 or 2 per cent. of my life nowadays—on holiday, perhaps 5 per cent., and that is putting it a little strongly. However, in the gay community sexuality seems to matter almost totally. There are gay clubs, gay bars, the gay press, gay this and gay that, and it is not healthy. Despite what other hon. Members have said, I believe that there is far more promiscuity among at least a section of the gay community than in the community as a whole.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cann: No, I will not give way as 1 only want to speak for five minutes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will get a chance to have his say.
  Homosexuals cannot have a normal—and I do not hesitate to use that word—family life with children. Equally importantly, homosexuality is dangerous to the males who practise it. I have heard what other hon. Members have said about the prevalence of AIDS among heterosexual as compared to gay populations and I do not believe that it is true. Uganda is one of the few places where AIDS is rampant among the heterosexual population and anal intercourse is used as a method of contraception there. Of course, for homosexuals that is one of the major methods of making love. The anus is not made for such things. The vagina and the penis are made to fit, but the penis and the rectum are not. The mixing of

  89
  blood and semen is one of the best ways to pass on, not only AIDS but many other virulent diseases. We are told to wash our hands when we leave the toilet because, at some stage, our hands may get near our lips. Those homosexual practices are set out in the Terrence Higgins pamphlet—not a publication that one would expect to be against such practices. For example, rimming—
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Oh God!
  Mr. Cann: It happens. Rimming, where one man licks out the rectum of another man, is not a practice that I would want my sons to get involved in; nor indeed is fisting, which is where one inserts the whole of one's fist and part of one's forearm up someone else's rectum. Those things happen.
  We have heard a lot of talk about love, compassion and toleration. It is time that we got a few facts into the argument and decided whether we really believe that those practices are as equal as family life—for me, no, and for my sons, no. If it is not right for my sons, it is not right for other people's sons. If the House passes the Bill—no doubt it will—we will be sending the message that homosexuality is of equal value to heterosexuality and that it is just as good. I do not believe that that is so.
  If it were true that one cannot help being homosexual and one is born that way, there would be no point in trying to fight against it. However, that is not always the case. It is wrong to argue from the particular to the general, but if the House will forgive me, I will do so on this occasion. I have a friend who went away to sea at 15, as a lot of other young lads did. They were out on the deep sea for a long while and, according to him, it is true that normal lads—I shall use that word again—were turned by some of the old lags because they were out there for all that time. If it is possible for young lads, or young lasses, to be turned in that way, it is the duty of our legal system to prevent it for as long as we possibly can. For that reason, I shall certainly vote against the Bill.
  8.28 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Comparing the atmosphere in the Chamber today with the atmosphere on 22 June 1998 when we debated this matter for the first time, is like replaying a football match after one already knows the final score. However, because of some of the remarks made by those in favour of the Bill, who have termed those of us who will vote against it tonight as "deeply prejudiced"—"prejudice based on fear" is a phrase that has been used again and again—I must say for the record that I can well remember being deeply impressed many years ago by a film called, "Victim", which starred Dirk Bogarde and which showed how outrageous, monstrous and unfair it is for people to be open to blackmail, public humiliation and the destruction of their professional career because they happen to be homosexual.
  For me, this debate is not primarily about homosexuality. I am just as concerned about the effect of the measures on heterosexual girls as on homosexual boys aged 16 and 17. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), in a long and articulate speech, observed that predators are predators, and victims are victims. I add that adults are adults, and children are children. I am concerned about ages of consent, the protection of children and the transmission of disease.
  90
  I mentioned the debate last year. I remember how struck I was with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who pointed out that the effect of the measure then proposed, which is proposed again tonight, would be to legitimate the act of buggery or anal sex, not only between adults and male children of 16 and 17 but between adults and female children of 16 and 17.
  We have heard much about criminalisation. Several hon. Members have generously let me intervene when time was less pressing than it is now to put this point: how can one argue against retaining the age of consent at 18 without saying that the same arguments apply to any other age of consent that one cares to name? I am talking about the ratchet that will lead us inevitably from 16 to 15 to 14 and to other ages that campaigning groups have in mind.
  Mr. Dawson: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about reducing the age of consent below 16. Surely an equal age of consent at 16 is an excellent way to add credibility to that limit and avoid a flaw in the system that unscrupulous people can exploit? Many other laws, such as those relating to marriage and to the age at which children leave home and finish full-time education, coalesce at 16, making that age more effective. This is a child protection issue above all.
  Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention but not for its length at this late hour. I would like to give way to other hon. Members. If I do, I hope that they will keep their interventions briefer. It is the essence of my case that the Bill legitimises a dangerous physical activity that will increase radically the prospects of children—boys and girls of 16 and 17—contracting fatal diseases. I shall come on to that presently.
  Returning to ages of consent, I have the Library research paper prepared for the debate on Edwina Currie's Bill in 1994. I will read a short paragraph into the record. It states:
  "The history of the age of consent for girls shows that 16 is a relatively high age compared to previous centuries. For over 700 years the criminal law has by statute prohibited men from having unlawful sexual intercourse with girls below a certain age. Originally, in 1275, the age was 12 and it was not changed until 1875 when the Offences Against the Person Act raised it to 13. In 1885"—
  only 10 years later—
  "the Criminal Law Amendment Act raised the age again—this time to the present age of 16. The 1885 legislation was enacted after a campaign aimed at eliminating child prostitution and the sexual exploitation of young girls. It was also the legislation which introduced the offence of gross indecency between men."
  I contend that the purpose of ages of consent is not to criminalise the people below them but to criminalise the people above them and stop them preying on the people below them. The record of civilised societies is that, as they advance, the age of consent is raised to afford greater protection, not lowered to afford less. If the argument for equality is so overwhelming to hon. Members who will vote the other way—if they are so desperate for equality—they could consider the state of society and teenage pregnancies and examine raising the age for heterosexual consent to the same as that for homosexual consent.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Lewis: No, I shall not give way again.

  91
  Let us move on to the question of the protection of children. We are dealing with one of the two activities that appear, in this country, to be primarily responsible for the transmission of the HIV virus and AIDS: the sharing of needles and anal sex. It is interesting to note that, for all the reams of argument advanced by those who will vote for the Bill, not one has given, or even attempted to give, a convincing argument—or any argument—to explain why the incidence of HIV and AIDS in this country is so much higher among people who engage in anal sex than among those who do not.
  It was intriguing to hear the arguments in respect of Africa—a continent for which we are not currently legislating. It was said that, in Africa, transmission of the HIV virus is effected primarily through heterosexual sex. I do not know whether that is so, but, even if it is, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) shot down that argument by explaining, very lucidly, that heterosexual sex in that community is far more likely to spread AIDS because resistance is weakened by the presence of so many other rampant sexually transmitted diseases. If we were conducting the debate in that context, the hon. Gentleman's argument would be irresistible. However, we are not debating in that context, because, in this country, people's resistance is not weakened by rampant STDs; therefore, we do not have to consider that argument here.
  Even if in such countries the practice of heterosexual straight sex transmitted AIDS easily, in this country and in our circumstances, manifestly it would not and manifestly it does not. It does not help to have people such as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) regale the House with a long list of profound bodies that are all in favour of the Bill when he, as a practising doctor, cannot come here and tell us why the prevalence of transmission of HIV/AIDS is so much higher among the homosexual community in Britain than it is among the female or male/female communities, unless it is because of the indulgence by members of our male homosexual community in the practice of anal sex. Hon. Members going into the Lobby tonight to vote in favour of the Bill should congratulate themselves while they can. They will not be thanked when the victims of the legislation receive their death sentence diagnoses in a decade's time.
  The clause dealing with the abuse of trust offence has already been criticised for its inevitable anomalies by responsible bodies such as the National Association of Head Teachers. We recognise that a person set in authority over a child—I repeat, a child—of 16 or 17 is in a position to exercise undue influence on that child, but what about what may be termed "personality power"? If children of 16 and 17 need to be protected from people who exercise too much power because of a position of authority, what about the need to protect them from people who exercise too much power because of their greater age, their forcefulness and their personality? In other words, should we be making these provisions at all? The clause has been tacked on, like a piece of elastoplast slapped on in an attempt to cover up a dangerous wound.
  Looking at this mish-mash, I was tempted to describe the Bill as a dog's breakfast; but, having listened to the arguments, some of them—perhaps all of them—sincere, I realise that that description is both inadequate and
  92
  inaccurate. The Bill is not to be likened to something that goes into the front end of an animal, but to that which comes out at the rear.
  8.40 pm
  Ms Hazel Blears: I am delighted to contribute, albeit briefly, but I do not recognise the terms of the debate in the language used by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The language that he used and the sentiments that he expressed are certainly not those used by many of my Salford constituents who have raised the issue with me, having thought at great length about the complex matters involved. I certainly should not want the debate to be conducted in the terms used by some hon. Members tonight.
  The issue was last debated in June. I was delighted to vote in favour of amendment on that occasion, and I will be doing so again tonight because I believe that we are debating a fundamental issue of human rights, equal rights and citizenship. The Bill is based on fundamental values—respect, tolerance, equality, compassion and understanding. They are the values of our Government, and they should be the values that guide our policy making and our legislation. Tonight we have an opportunity to rid ourselves of the bigotry and prejudice which have pervaded our law for far too long.
  The subject is a matter of concern in every constituency in the land. I have had many letters supporting both sides of the argument, but the ones that have moved me the most are those from young gay men who were frightened and in despair and who felt extremely vulnerable because of the current law. They have been denied the right to express their sexuality in a loving relationship. They certainly do not feel that they should face the terrifying prospect of being branded criminals.
  I believe that the Bill will improve the health prospects of many young gay men. I noticed that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was not convinced by the National AIDS Trust; nor was he convinced by the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS; but perhaps he will be convinced by the British Medical Association, which states in its report:
  "Of prime concern … to the medical profession as a whole, are the concerns that the present law may inhibit efforts to improve the sexual health of young homosexual and bisexual men. The average age of first homosexual encounter has been found to be 15.7, and it is vital that these young homosexual men received effective health education and health care."
  That is the real issue at stake.
  Research has shown that in many cases the law as it stands hinders the vital work of teachers, youth workers and health promotion professionals in trying to educate young men to help them to negotiate the minefield of sex and to help them have safer sex which will protect their health.
  It is true that young men are frightened to discuss these vital matters and that professional advisers are often caught in a nightmare, struggling to balance the issues of trust and confidentiality to their clients with their obligations under the current law. It is an invidious position to be in—to know that one's prime duty is to try to help young people who are desperately seeking assistance while, at the same time, having to worry whether, as a professional, one might be aiding and abetting a criminal offence. That is a ridiculous state of affairs.

  93
  The choices that young men have to make must be informed by accurate and up-to-date knowledge about HIV and, indeed, wider health issues. As one Opposition Member said, it is also crucial that young women should have access to good sex education. The prevalence of teenage pregnancy has a most dreadful effect on young people's health, and the damage can last for many years. It is therefore vital that young men and young women have access to high-quality health education.
  The effect of the current law on young men's mental health ought to be of great concern to us all. Much has already been said about the prevalence of suicide and suicide attempts by young people who feel vulnerable and isolated. The long-term effects on their mental health cannot be underestimated. Certainly in the north-west, especially in Manchester, the incidence of suicide among young men is very high. We must all recognise our obligation to do whatever we can to support and sustain those young men.
  I have to comment on what I believe to be the unhealthy emphasis placed by Members on both sides of the Chamber on the subject of anal intercourse. Research has revealed that only a minority of gay men engage in that activity and the vast majority of those do not have their first such experience until the age of 21. It is legal for them to engage in anal intercourse at the age of 18, but they do not do so. They make a mature decision about how they want to conduct and express their sexuality. The unhealthy emphasis on those issues is to be deplored.
  The Bill contains excellent proposals to protect young people from exploitation by those who are in a position of trust. Last November, the Government published their response to the Utting report on safeguards for children. I recall the memorable occasion when the Secretary of State for Health acknowledged the failure of Ministers, councillors and professionals such as social workers—all of society, in fact—to safeguard and protect children in care. That was one of the most refreshing statements ever made by a Cabinet Minister about our collective responsibility to those particularly vulnerable children.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, played a pivotal role in drafting the Government's response to the report. The Bill is part of our move towards joined-up government and towards bringing together health, social services and the criminal justice system to try to deliver important policies. In his statement, the Secretary of State for Health said that
  "our proposals are intended to ensure that those responsible, at any level, for children in care behave towards them as any good parent tries to behave towards his or her children".—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 1011.]
  The Bill will extend that duty of responsibility to those who are in a position of trust regarding our most vulnerable children.
  The response also said that we shall extend the duty of local authorities to assist, befriend and advise young people in care from the age of 16 to the age of 18 because we recognise that those duties should not come to a full stop when young people are at the vulnerable age of 16. As a society, we ought to be caring for, sustaining and supporting young people in the way that good families automatically do. We also recommend that there should be legal safeguards to protect children in care.
  The Bill will play a vital role in fulfilling those commitments. It is but one step and there is still a great deal to be done in health and social services to protect
  94
  those children, but it demonstrates how we can use the criminal justice system as well as other areas of policy to try to ensure that children are protected.
  Many of my constituents were absolutely devastated last year when the amendment on the age of consent was rejected by the other place. I received almost an avalanche of correspondence from people who were not only disappointed at the result because of personal interest but devastated that the democratic view of the House should be contravened by the other place. The sooner we embark on our programme of reform and remove the prejudice and bigotry that the other place has exhibited on this issue, the better.
  Finally, I draw the attention of the House to a terrible incident that has brought the issues into sharper focus in my mind: the arranged commercial marriage that took place in Birmingham this afternoon of a couple who had never met before, who had never embarked on a relationship and who have been brought together for commercial advantage and entertainment. That is a travesty of the meaningful relationship of marriage. We live in a society where such a sham is perfectly legal and acceptable, yet a close, loving relationship between two young men who want to express their sexuality together in a warm and caring way is illegal. What kind of society do we live in when that expresses our values? I urge colleagues to think carefully and to support the Bill.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: This is a hugely difficult subject. I have not the faintest idea whether the Bill will achieve what we hope that it will achieve. That is partly because the moment that it is passed, as I am sure it will be, the goalposts will move and it will be impossible to attribute any measurable outcome to it.
  I find it impossible to believe that, in a world where some people even undergo surgery in order to align their body with their perception of their sexuality, some are not born to be homosexual. Of course they are. It is hard for someone like me, whose primary frame of reference is Christian, when so many Christians assume that there is only one possible way to vote. I wish that it were as simple as that. I shall explain why I, as someone who tries to follow Christ, will almost certainly vote to lower the age of consent. Much of what I have to say was very much better put by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward).
  I shall touch on three issues that seem to be central to this question. The first is the age and nature of sexual behaviour. What, for example, is appropriate, and is it the same as moral? Secondly, is the law effective at protecting vulnerable young people, or does it do more harm than good? Thirdly, why are the sins of sexual behaviour regarded by so many Christians as peculiarly dreadful?
  I believe that the desire of most people, as expressed in many opinion polls, is to have a lasting, exclusive relationship with one other person. That expresses a recognition that such a relationship is normally the best for building up both participants and, where children are involved, for building up children also. That is why the Christian religion lays such stress on faithfulness and asks for such big promises from marrying couples. It seems that the same desire for a long-lasting, stable relationship characterises most homosexuals also.

  95
  We all know that human behaviour frequently falls short of the ideal. It is a truism that, when young people first become sexually aware, they frequently find it exciting and attractive to enjoy sex with another person. Some, indeed, become highly promiscuous. Like anyone else engaged in immoral behaviour, they justify their action by involving as many others in similar behaviour as possible. Such herd behaviour is often prominent in public demonstrations on this issue. It makes me less rather than more sympathetic when I hear it. The underlying theme to many hon. Members' concerns about the costs of inappropriate or immoral sexual behaviour is in fact that promiscuity is frequently the spreader of disease, the cause of unwanted pregnancies, and so on. That is the key.
  In such herd behaviour, people are often supported by self-appointed experts, many of whom base their public pronouncements on their personal experience of a messy private life to which they never admit. If they are counsellors of such activity, they should be made to state their own position. Needless to say, they often conceal it. Such behaviour is destructive. I am very glad that much greater efforts are being made to support the many young people who want to resist peer pressure to carry sexual experimentation further than they want. We should be doing everything in our power to assist them and the agencies that try to help.
  There is a case for saying that, as we prolong the dependency of childhood, often into people's early 20s, the age of legal sexual relations should be raised for all sexual orientations. One could argue that the law reflects the age at which the independence of a job gave promise of starting an independent household, and that all that has changed for most young people today. It is quite unrealistic to suggest any such change. Only the Taliban—not even new Labour—could realistically turn the clock back in such a way. Paradoxically, good food and good health are bringing down the age of puberty, just as our social behaviour is lengthening the period of dependency on parents. That is one of the unresolved difficulties that underlie much of our confusion in this debate.
  Even if I have an unrealistic thought that 18 would be a better age, I believe that there is some sense in removing legal sanctions from sexual behaviour at the age that we have all accepted to be the age when young men and women are able to take full-time employment and leave behind the status of pupil.
  If sex outside a permanent relationship falls short of the ideal, that is often the definition that people use of immorality. However, I expect that most of us would distinguish between experimentation between friends and the exploitation of vulnerability by a man or woman whose aim is only self-gratification. That is not only immoral but cruel, and often causes lasting damage to the victim.
  That brings me to my second point. Is the law effective? I do not know. What I do know is that most of the people who want to keep the law as it is do not know, either. One group of people who know more than I do is the group that works to pick up the pieces after a young person has been exploited. I am a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which
  96
  perhaps sees more of such victims than most other organisations, and its advice to me is that its work would be more easily done, and a number of young men would be more effectively safeguarded, if it were not a crime to have had a homosexual relationship, willingly or unwillingly.
  In an area as difficult and complex as this, I give most credence to those who have the skills and generosity to work with the victims of sexual abuse, and I question the role of the law in matters of this kind. It can too often be used as a prop, which allows the rest of us to evade our human duty to help and support people who are in confusion or distress.
  Finally, I should like to ask a question of my Christian friends, some of whom I know will be disappointed at the position that I have adopted. Why does the Christian family give such pre-eminence to our falling short of excellence in sexual matters? Why does it not place equal emphasis on the many other ways in which we all fall short? I am sorry that the most authoritarian interpreter of scripture in the House, who spoke earlier, is not in the Chamber.
  In the New Testament, our Lord gives much greater prominence to injustice, greed, hypocrisy and dishonesty than he does to sexual shortcomings. I sometimes wonder: does our ferocity about homosexuality stem from the fact that, for most of us, it has never been an issue? Would it disturb our equanimity if we were to meet equal ferocity about our—almost obscene—level of comfort in this country compared with the poverty of most of the world? Is it because, like me, so many of us have broken the promises that we made before God at our wedding, and it is disturbing to be asked to look at that?
  I cannot know whether I have taken the right decision today, but I hope and believe that I may have done, and I hope and pray that we can take a generous view of behaviour that we do not share. I believe that if we do so, we may be better placed to help young people come to terms with their sexual confusions, and thereby protect them from the exploitation that we all deplore.
  8.58 pm
  Ms Beverley Hughes: I shall keep my remarks brief, but I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe); I shall not mention many of his comments because I wholeheartedly agree with them. I shall start by countering some of the arguments that have been made against the Bill.
  It has been argued that because, under current legislation, there have been no convictions of 16 to 18-year-olds, there is no need to repeal the legislation. That is a spurious argument, because the incidence of convictions is irrelevant to the principles of the Bill and what it is designed to achieve. The aims of the Bill are, first, to ensure that we treat young people equally before the law; and, secondly, to ensure that, wherever possible, and as far as possible, we do not criminalise young people for behaviour that is not inherently criminal.
  Secondly, we have heard the argument that homosexuality is abnormal, disease-ridden and dangerous, and not equal to heterosexual behaviour and relationships. That is an ill-informed point of view, to put it mildly. It assumes that homosexual behaviour, unlike heterosexual

  97
  behaviour, is entirely or almost exclusively focused on physical sexual activity. Of course that is not true. It is not true of heterosexual behaviour and it is not true, in my experience, of homosexual behaviour between people who love each other.
  The argument is spurious also in so far as it presents homosexuality as posing undue risk of disease or damage. In one sense, all sexual activity involves some risk. Without recent advances in medical science, women could have been forgiven not long ago for refusing to engage in sexual behaviour because of the risks that that posed to them—the risks of illness, the effects of contraception, and childbirth.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Is it the hon. Lady's understanding that women are protected by the law from the act of buggery? Does she believe that that is correct, or does she believe that the law is imperfect in that respect and should be changed? Will she explain her answer to those questions?
  Ms Hughes: I am making a much simpler point. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am simply saying that any physical sexual activity involves a degree of risk. The arguments that we have heard tonight, which parade homosexuality as some highly abnormal, disease-ridden activity which presents great risks, are spurious and inaccurate.
  I have always felt that people who speak in such authoritarian, intolerant and inflammatory terms about an activity in which they do not engage and which they do not share are giving us much more information about themselves and their attitudes than about the subject of their remarks.
  Thirdly, and more important, we have heard that lowering the age of consent for young men in homosexual relationships would be tantamount to encouraging young men to enter homosexual relationships. That is a false premise. Equalising the age of consent is not tantamount to promoting homosexuality. I share the view of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who has left the Chamber. He suggested that we should discourage all young people from engaging in sexual activity too early. I agree with that.
  Adolescence is a time when young people have a great deal to cope with. The complications and the emotional resources that a sexual relationship demands can add another layer of difficulty. That is the same for young women and for young men. It is not an argument against lowering the age of consent for homosexuality.
  Indeed, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), most young men who subsequently define themselves as homosexual have so defined themselves well before the age of 16. The argument that lowering the age of consent would push young men early into homosexuality against their nature does not hold up.
  My main point relates to the arguments about child protection. That is a subject with which I was greatly concerned in my professional life, before entering the House. I must tell hon. Members that lowering the age of consent has no impact, one way or the other, on whether or not we protect children adequately.
  A few years ago, I undertook major research for the Department of Health, investigating the incidence, and the nature, of organised and ritual sexual abuse. Some of that
  98
  research was traumatic. It involved reading the transcripts of children's evidence in some 20,000 cases in which an allegation of sexual abuse of an organised or ritual nature had been made.
  I can tell hon. Members that the vast majority of those cases involved children well below the age of 16. There were various ways in which children were drawn into sexual abuse—for example, through paedophiles. Paedophiles are people in our community—youth workers, teachers, piano teachers and scout masters. Although I do not wish to taint everyone in those professions, a number of paedophiles use those activities to access and groom young children. They do not access and groom 16 to 18-year-olds.
  Another area in which children are abused is prostitution. The vast majority of young girls and boys who go into prostitution do so mainly because they were sexually abused as younger children by men, and very occasionally, by women.
  The idea that lowering the age of consent for young boys will have an impact on the inadequate way in which we protect all children is not a valid argument against doing so. To protect children more adequately, we must address the flaws in the criminal justice system—we are doing so. We must also act strongly against prostitution and give sentences that measure up to the seriousness of those crimes.
  Mr. Roger Gale: One of my hon. Friends referred earlier to the ratchet effect. Does the hon. Lady understand that, if the age of consent is lowered to 16, there will be downward ratchet effect? No prosecutions are effectively brought against abusers or those who get 13-year-old girls pregnant now, so none will be brought against the abusers of 13 or 14-year-olds. Does the hon. Lady realise that that will damage the safety of those to whom she rightly refers as "children"?
  Ms Hughes: No, I do not accept that argument. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are very few convictions in relation to the sexual abuse of children. Research shows that the reason is largely because the children are very young and are not regarded as credible witnesses in court. It is not because 13-year-olds consent to sex. Thus, we need to deal with our criminal justice system and evidential rules if we are to protect children better, and lowering the age of consent will have no impact on that.
  The Bill as a whole addresses some important issues. One is that of equality before the law for young people. Many families of young people who are engaged in homosexual relationships, and the organisations that represent them, write to me about the difficulty and pain caused to young men who want to relate to another young man—in an emotional, not necessarily a physical, way. The current position makes their lives extremely difficult. So far in this debate, the arguments against lowering the age of consent have not been valid. However, there is a valid reason for taking this course of action.
  The second issue is that of abuse of trust. It will become a criminal offence for someone in a position of trust to abuse that position. For the reasons that I have outlined, and because of my experience in this area, I very much support that provision. Children are, or have been, badly abused in residential care and institutional settings, and

  99
  the provision is therefore long overdue. It is about protecting children, but lowering the age of consent will have no impact on it one way or the other.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am keen to let at least another four Back Benchers speak before 9.30, when the winding-up speeches will be made. That can be done if they take five minutes each.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: A key feature of this debate, and something that has driven us into lengthy discourse, is the fact that we have ranged very wide of the subject in hand—the age at which British citizens can freely engage in consensual sexual acts under our criminal law, and the age at which they are free from criminal penalty for acts in which they choose to engage.
  This debate is not about sending messages, or encouraging or discouraging forms of activity; it is about how we see our criminal codes fitting into our national life. I fundamentally disagree with comments made early in the debate by the hon. Member for New Forest, (Dr Lewis), and by other hon. Members since, that our criminal law should be about telling people what they should do according to the will of the majority.
  Our criminal code, many centuries ago, indeed included laws against adultery and about all sorts of behaviour, including, in various periods, whether people should dance, sing or go to plays. Our law has evolved in a positive direction since then, towards a modern and liberal code. The foundation of that is the belief that the criminal law fundamentally and primarily exists to prevent citizens from committing harm to each other and, once such harm has been committed, to punish the perpetrators. It does not exist to tell us what to do.
  I am wary of politicians telling us anything about how we should carry out our sex lives. I am pleased that the criminal code has evolved in a much more liberal direction, often because it had been shown to be hypocritical and because politicians had set rules that they, due to their own human nature, could not live up to. As power structures have become more democratic, people have rightly demanded a more democratic criminal code.
  We must be wary of any criminal provisions that deprive citizens of their liberty. That is a fundamental issue; we must have a proportionate response to any actions that are carried out. The age of consent is primarily about deciding at which age young people acquire certain rights—it is their right to do with their bodies as they wish—and the responsibilities that go with those rights. I would not in any way claim that there are no responsibilities.
  As other hon. Members have said, we should discourage anyone from having sexual relations at such an early age, but that discouragement would not be assisted by threatening people with a gaol sentence. They would have acquired responsibility for their bodies, and it would not be helpful if the nanny state tried to usurp that responsibility. It would be much clearer to say at 16, "You
  100
  are responsible for your sexual activity. We can offer advice and assistance, but we will not throw you in prison for choosing to do things in your own way."
  To a degree, the age of consent will always be set arbitrarily, but, on that basis, 16 is a sensible age at which we can assume that a young person has acquired sufficient responsibility. An age of permission is not the same as an age of compulsion. We do not require people to smoke when they reach 16, or to get married, and making something permissible in no sense makes it compulsory. We must always bear that in mind in the debate.
  I generally welcome the abuse of trust provisions. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was right to raise the issue previously and, as I said in response to his earlier comments, I was disappointed that it became an argument between us. We agree on a common end, but not on the method of achieving it.
  A general position of authority provision would lead to considerable problems and would not be a workable law. For example, if a sexual relationship began between assistants aged 21 and 17 who were working for me, and the 21-year-old was the line manager of the 17-year-old, a general authority provision would catch them. That would be unworkable. I understand that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, whose knowledge of parliamentary procedure is deeper than mine, was trying to tease the Government towards giving a more detailed response, and I welcome that response.
  We agree about abuse of a position of trust and/or authority. The other issue that was referred to was how we deal with pimping. We could introduce specific criminal provisions—outside the scope of the Bill and dissociated with the age of consent—and I have corresponded with the Minister of State, Home Office, who has responsibility for those matters, and with his predecessor. No one can consent to be pimped, and we should deal with pimping in a serious way.
  I generally welcome the Bill and hope that it receives a fair wind.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Tonight's debate is not only about young men growing up. In many ways, it is about us growing up as a society. I have been greatly impressed by many of the comments from both sides of the House, although I have been saddened by many of the representations made to me, some of which were of the same type as those mentioned earlier in the debate.
  Some of the most lubricious details that have been sent to me contain an element of denial. I suggest that people who send so much information are perhaps asking questions that they should answer.
  Overall, however, I am asked why I—as a Christian, and a person who tries to lead my life in the imitation of Christ—would, as I intend to, support the Bill tonight. Like many others who have spoken, I have no doubts, no fears, no worries and no concerns about that. The essential, core element of my Christianity is the love that Our Lord showed us, and in my view it is far better for us to include than to exclude. Tolerance is better than intolerance, and recognition of reality must be the way forward.
  We have heard tonight that this is the thin end of the wedge. I consider that to be an intellectually fraudulent argument. I know of no Labour Member who has any

  101
  hidden agenda to extend the legislation to loose mere anarchy on the world, and to reduce us to a libertarian society, if such a thing exists. With the exception of the repeal of the iniquitous section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988—which I hope every one of us with half an ounce of wit or sense will seek to repeal at the earliest opportunity—I am aware of no move towards any further legislation or to furthering lowering of the age of consent; quite the reverse, in fact.
  The other equally offensive and intellectually fraudulent argument suggests that homosexuality is a fad—something that a teenager assumes like this year's fashions, and then discards. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) spoke of the experience of young matelots on the deep sea. I recall little sexual activity on the blue waters when I was a 16-year-old sailor; what there was, it must be said, tended to be of a solitary nature. To imply, as my hon. Friend did—in an extraordinary expression, which completely failed to appreciate the reality—that young men could be "turned" in that way is contrary not only to my experience at sea, which admittedly was not very long, but to my experience of human life and of human nature. With respect, I must say that people are not "turned"; they are inherently what they are. It is not a fad.
  Many speakers have referred to the heart-searching that they have done in deciding how to vote. They have talked about their children, and I think that is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) spoke eloquently and poignantly about her son; I am sure that every hon. Member will join me in paying tribute to what she said tonight and in June. I too have a son. I am something of a failure in west London Roman Catholic circles in that, as the eldest of eight children, I have only two of my own, although that may be due to the political life.
  My son is not yet 16. I love my son, and I hope that I will always love my son. I do not know whether he will be gay, straight or bisexual—that is up to him; that is what he will be—but, if he comes out as a gay man at the age of 16 or 17, I would like to show my love and respect for him by saying that I value and respect his sexuality just as much as I respect his sister's sexuality.
  If we refused to pass the Bill tonight, we would condemn young men to be a lesser breed within the law. We would condemn people to be considered inferior, and to be excluded. That is inequitable and indefensible. Tonight, we have an opportunity to strike a blow for the one key, glorious principle that has been mentioned so many times—for the one word "equality".
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Like the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), I spent some time at sea, as a utility steward on a P and O liner. My cabin mates gave me this advice: if I went for a drink with the welfare officer and the welfare officer invited me to discuss my sex life with him and asked me to shut the door, I should shut the door, but should make sure that I was on the outside. I took that advice.
  This has been a serious debate. I am sorry that those hon. Members who have vigorously supported the Bill have tried to portray those of us who deeply and profoundly oppose it as bigots or intolerant, saying that we do not care. That is far from the truth. It takes a lot of
  102
  guts to fight for one's cause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) did superbly, because the accusation is quickly made that one is intolerant and uncaring.
  Let me address the key issues. First, the debate and the Bill are about the protection of young boys aged 16 or 17. We are not talking about the principle of homosexuality. We are talking about the issue as it applies to young boys of 16 or 17.
  Secondly, as I said to the Home Secretary, the House has to understand what message will be sent from this place to our constituents, to the wider public and to the nation as a whole on how we wish society to be organised. That is the question that will go out from the House tonight. The Government are trying to have it both ways.
  The Bill is not a Back-Bench measure; it is a Government Bill. The Government say that they are inclusive and all the rest of it, and wish to curry favour with certain sections of society, but, at the same time, they publish a weighty document on the family because all their polling says that the family is a good thing, so that is what they need to support if they are to continue to curry favour with voters.
  The Government's document, much of which I agree with, says:
  "This Government believes that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships."
  It goes on to say:
  "we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children."
  The Bill sends a message that conflicts with that one. It strikes at the heart of the concept of the nuclear family forming the basis of society.
  I say that because, like the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), whose contribution was extremely courageous, frank and accurate, I do not believe that homosexual activity is the same as heterosexual sex. The procreation of children cannot, by definition, take place within a family of homosexuals; it is not possible. The nation continues through heterosexual relations.
  My fear is that the Bill reinforces the idea that is already being broadcast through various organs of the media—newspapers and, particularly, television, which is the most instrumental and influential—that a young person can choose between two equally valid life styles. That is not my view. I am sorry if others disagree, but I do not believe that that is the way in which to build a sound society.
  The matter was well summed up by Baroness Young, who said:
  "It is said that this whole issue is one of equality. I do not myself believe that there is a moral equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Furthermore, I think that boys and girls are not equal in emotional development. I believe it is a very doubtful argument to bring equality into this issue at all. In many respects it simply does not apply. We are not talking about equal things."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 939.]
  I entirely support what she said in her courageous fight in the other place.
  My second point concerns the question: is the Bill the thin end of the wedge? Although others have argued that it is not, I believe that it is. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made it clear

  103
  that he views the Bill as a limited measure and wishes to go further; he set out ways in which he felt that that could be done. Labour Members have said that they wish section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 to be repealed. Indeed, the other day, I heard the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), on the radio, assuring someone on a programme about homosexuality that the Government would introduce measures to repeal section 28 at the earliest possible opportunity.
  My third point concerns health. I must point out to the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) and for Salford (Ms Blears) that the National Blood Service refuses to accept blood from any man who has had sex with another man. If anal sex does not cause HIV, what does? Why is the National Blood Service giving that clear instruction to all those who come before it?
  I shall conclude now, because I know that others want to speak. We should pay heed to public opinion. Some 70 per cent. of people are not in favour of lowering the age of consent. We have heard a lot about democracy in another place. Perhaps we should listen to the public on this. The Bill threatens to be a charter for the abuse of young boys. That is why I shall oppose it.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Tony McNulty: In the few moments available to me, I should like to dwell on at least two speeches that I have had the privilege—in one case the dubious privilege—to hear, because they were both extremely honest. One was by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who took us through the struggles that he had had with the issue, coming from a deeply Christian background. He came out in favour of tolerance and all that is virtuous about Christianity by coming down in favour of the Bill.
  The second very honest speech—I do not know about courageous—was by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann). He said clearly what many of those who oppose the measure are scared to say: that, in their opinion, homosexuality does not equate in any way with heterosexuality. I entirely dispute that view, but it is sincerely held, even if the speech was rather strange.
  I have no truck with the mean-minded, nasty little speech, bereft of any humanity and laced with intolerance—as expected—by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). It was unmitigated nonsense from start to finish. Sadly, he is not here at the moment. When I see him, I shall remind him of what I have just said. He needs to be told and have that put in his face. More than any other hon. Member, he probably shares, hook, line and sinker, the feelings that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich had the courage to stand up and express, but he hid behind all sorts of tricks and loquaciousness to avoid saying so. That was a disgrace.
  The only substantive argument that we have heard against equalising the age of consent today—or in the previous debate on the issue—is the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, which fails to recognise homosexuality as natural or normal, regarding it only as a perversion or an aberration. On that basis, many of the arguments against the Bill are at least logical. They are still profoundly wrong, but at least they can be
  104
  viewed as logical and, to some extent, honest. I do not support those arguments, because they are unsustainable, un-Christian, intolerant and logically and morally flawed.
  If I were reflecting my mailbag, on balance I would go to the No Lobby rather than the Aye Lobby. I submitted a petition reflecting that opinion last time that the issue was debated. It included my mother's signature on one page, so I am not necessarily even reflecting my family's view.
  Those who want intolerance, inhumanity and a lack of equality in this country in the 21st century should vote in the No Lobby. Those who want tolerance, fairness and equity at 16 should come with us in the Aye Lobby.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: This has been an interesting, and at times passionate, debate. At the outset, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said that this matter would be the subject of a free vote among Conservative Members. I shall be speaking for myself in the debate, and I will make it clear that I shall be voting for the age of consent to remain at 18. I accept that I will be in a minority in the vote because, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, after the earlier debate on this issue in this Parliament, this is a bit like playing a football match when the result is already know. This has not been like the occasion in 1994, when the outcome was in some doubt until a late stage.
  We have heard speeches of some passion. Pre-eminent among them was the sincere, passionate and good speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward)—although I did not agree with him. He spoke in favour of the freedom of the individual, and made memorable points that were bound to appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Certainly, he appealed to Conservative Members by appealing to the Conservative traditions of freedom, tolerance and respect for minorities. He quoted the late Enoch Powell as an authority on the need to protect minorities in these matters. I do not go down the same road as my hon. Friend, but I pay tribute to him on his speech. I appreciate that he made it with relevant experience, as a director of Childline and as someone who has thought about the issues carefully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made an equally outstanding speech. He spoke with great conviction, sincerity and passion. He emphasised that the vote inevitably sends a message to members of the public—we must face that fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made the same point. There seemed to be some dissent in some quarters about that proposition, but it is difficult for hon. Members on the other side of the argument to dispute that we are sending a message—not least because a number of them made the self-same point.
  Contrary to what has just been said by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East made a powerful and honest speech in which there was no mistaking his point of view. I do not think that it was entirely fair of the hon. Gentleman to describe my hon. Friend's speech as he did. My hon. Friend made a powerful speech, which may not have been agreed with in all quarters, but was sincere, honest and clear.

  105
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an equally sincere and powerful speech, and made important points about the nature of marriage. He spoke for many in the House when he referred to the need to avoid promiscuity, and for all relationships of whatever nature to be faithful. My hon. Friend also spoke from a position of experience, as a trustee of the NSPCC.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made some important points, and it was fair of him to say that those on the other side of the argument are wrong to characterise those taking his view, in favour of retaining the age of consent at 18, as bigoted, intolerant and uncaring. My hon. Friend proceeded to demonstrate exactly why that is a bogus assertion. He made clear his concerns, which will lead him, as matter of conscience, to vote against the Bill.
  We have heard a number of speeches of equal passion from Labour Members, who have, in the main—although not exclusively—spoken in favour of the Bill. First, I must mention the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who has done the House a great service by raising the issue of how best we protect our children. He made some extremely powerful points, and spoke about the large numbers of children who live away from home in boarding schools, foster care or whatever. That is a huge problem, and we have only to look at some of the alarming things that have happened in recent history to realise that the hon. Gentleman has done the House a service.
  The hon. Member also referred to the second part of the Bill, which will have to be considered in some detail in Committee. He underlined the need for that consideration when he said that the House resents it when a Committee does not have the time and opportunity to consider a matter, as was the case with the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill. Now we have an opportunity to consider a Bill properly, and some time will have to be spent on that detailed consideration.
  The short but powerful speech by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) amply supported the case for detailed consideration. He clearly wants to go into detail about the adequacy of the maximum sentence proposed in the Bill, as well as about other important issues. He spoke powerfully about his experience, as someone professionally involved in the resulting cases, of the terrible consequences of abuse in children's homes.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a considered speech. I did not agree with his general point of view, but his well-thought-out speech went into some important points of detail, especially concerning the defences that would be available under both parts of the Bill. The points that he made on the statutory defence, the anomalies on sentencing and the sex offenders register constituted a strong case for detailed consideration of the second part.
  Labour Members spoke in support of lowering the age of consent, with the exception of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann). I join the hon. Member for Harrow, East in saying that, although I do not agree entirely with that hon. Gentleman's speech—my reasons for voting against the Bill will be different from his—I know a courageous speech when I hear one. The House should recognise that the hon. Member for Ipswich made a courageous speech.
  106
  I do not agree with the point of view of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), but I acknowledge that she made a sincere and passionate speech, as she did in our previous debate on the subject when she moved the amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill. I acknowledge her sincere approach to these issues.
  I approach all our debates and decisions on moral issues with a certain amount of humility. I am not one of those who like to give people great lectures about how they should run their lives. I accept, however, that, on this occasion, like every other hon. Member, I am called upon to exercise my judgment and do what I as an individual think is right.
  In 1994, I voted to reduce the age of consent from 21 to 18. I thought then that there was a strong case for such a change. I hope that I will be acquitted of any suggestion that I am against homosexuals or trying to condemn homosexuality. I am thinking about what is the appropriate age of consent. I have listened carefully to all the arguments that have been made in favour of lowering it, but I am far less convinced of the case for reduction to 16 than I was of the case for reduction to 18.
  I feel—as many members of the public do, if surveys are to be believed—that 16 is too young for something of this importance. The Home Secretary earlier cited with approval—rightly, I believe—the Wolfenden report, which, as he acknowledged, brought about a sea change in these matters. He made it clear—and I agree with him—that, before the report and the changes that it eventually brought about, there was huge unhappiness. Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, have acknowledged the same point.
  I look back to Wolfenden, which ushered in an age of tolerance of homosexuality, to see exactly what it said about the age of consent. That report can certainly be acquitted of any suggestion of being anti-homosexual. What did it say? We know that it set the age of consent at 21. Some members of the committee favoured 18, but the view taken on the age of 16 as an age of consent was clear:
  "While there are some grounds for fixing the age as low as sixteen, it is obvious that however 'mature' a boy of that age may be as regards physical development or psycho-sexual make-up, and whatever analogies may be drawn from the law relating to offences against young girls, a boy is incapable, at the age of sixteen, of forming a mature judgment about actions of a kind which might have the effect of setting him apart from the rest of society."
  We all know that society has changed a great deal since 1957, but there is still some merit in that approach. Actions of that type would, at the very least, have profound consequences for a young person that could follow him for the rest of his life. In a matter of such importance, it is not too much to ask someone to wait until he is 18 before he is able to take such a step. A large section of public opinion shares that view on the appropriate age of consent.
  There are people who, for various reasons, are anti-homosexual. There is a section of opinion that is, as some hon. Members would put it, prejudiced. However, a much larger element of public opinion feels some unease on this subject, and feels that 18 is a more appropriate age than 16. The public are far more tolerant than they once were of gay life styles and so forth, but even among those tolerant people who wish to treat homosexual people as equals, there remains unease at the prospect of lowering the age of consent from 18 to 16. I share that concern.

  107
  My hon. Friend the Member for Witney spoke of Enoch Powell and of the protection of minorities. We should not, he said, slavishly follow the enfranchised majority. That is a fair point; Enoch Powell made a memorable speech—about capital punishment, I think—on whether Members of Parliament should or should not, when called on to exercise their individual consciences, have any regard for public opinion. It is an interesting question, but I shall not go into it now.
  I believe, however, that public opinion should be listened to on this matter. The public have it right: no matter how much people may wish to tolerate homosexuality and accord equality to it, a large element of public opinion is uneasy about the step we are considering. People are concerned that 16 is simply too young, and believe that 18 is more appropriate. It would be a mistake, and it would not be good for young people, so soon after Parliament had reduced the age from 21 to 18 to reduce it still further to an age that many people—myself included—regard as too young.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The House has heard a good debate in which a topic that arouses deep feelings has been discussed with seriousness and passion. Feelings are deep on both sides of the House, among those who are for and against the Bill, and feelings also run deep in the country. It is right that we should have a free vote, and I shall vote, as I always have, for the equalisation of the age of consent at 16. Each of us must approach this issue informed by our consciences, our experience and our personal views.
  It is interesting that hon. Members both for and against the Bill have felt able to talk about faith, and about love. That does the House great credit.
  As we move forward in this process, it is important that we continue, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, to approach the topic in a way that does not harden attitudes or alienate our fellow citizens who have strongly held views and also in a way that recognises that we are dealing with a subject that goes to the heart of people's very existence. During the debate, hon. Members have mentioned the anguish that individuals and their families feel as they approach their own sexuality and its impact on themselves and on those they love.
  The Bill falls into two distinct parts. We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding)—she could not be present tonight for reasons that we all know and understand—and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) for enabling us to examine the Bill in this way and to give it the detailed consideration that it deserves.
  The first part of the Bill deals with the age of consent, which is a matter of principle and, for many hon. Members who spoke, is very much a matter of equality before the law. The second part, quite differently, deals with abuse of trust and must be seen as part of the Government's much wider work—how we protect children and vulnerable people—and I am glad it enjoys the support of both sides of the House. That is a top priority for the Government.
  108
  My hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Ms Blears) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) said that it is important that we recognise the significance of what we are doing in terms of that wider programme of work on the "Quality Protects" initiative, the children's safeguards review and our response to that. During the review of sexual offences that we announced earlier, we will ensure that the goal of protection from abuse is the paramount goal for the criminal law in that area. Nothing must be subordinated to it.
  We must ensure that we prevent unsuitable people from working with children. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced earlier, we will make available the report of the group of experts that we asked to examine the matter to ensure that we work out the details of an integrated scheme to protect vulnerable people and children as a matter of priority. We have to do so not because we are discussing the equalisation of the age of consent today, but because it is the right thing to do. It was always the right thing to do and it has been neglected for far too long.
  Also, we must deal with the wider issues that have been raised in the debate, particularly, but not exclusively, by those who oppose equalisation of the age of consent, saying that it is the thin end of the wedge. That point was made by the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) expressed concern about the importance of ensuring that we get the penalties right in cases of abuse of trust. I am here to assure him, first, that we are determined to ensure that the provisions contained in the Bill on abuse of trust are clearly understood to refer to consensual activity. With the sort of activities that he described—rape and indecent assault—it is right that the full penalties invoked by the law for such offences should apply. The Bill deals with abuse of trust in relation to consensual acts. I am sure that he appreciates the difference. That is precisely the sort of matter that we will discuss in Committee.
  The same is true of the matters of detail raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). They properly relate to the wider issues of equality dealt with by our review of sexual offences. The review again seeks to build a broad consensus in our society that recognises deeply held feelings and the issues of faith and belief that inform all hon. Members in their approach to the subject.
  On the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, let me make this crystal clear: the Government are wholly opposed to any further reduction in the age of consent for either sex. We will not countenance a reduction to 14, 12 or any of the other ages mentioned with reference to our European neighbours.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
  This is not about encouraging teenage sex but about ensuring that the law is fair and seen to be fair. We know that the criminal law is a blunt and often deeply

  109
  unsatisfactory instrument in dealing with the difficult and complex issues raised by teenage sexuality. It would be folly to pretend otherwise.
  Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
  The hon. Member for New Forest, East asked about the mental state of a young man who committed suicide when he had only to wait another 18 months or so. My response is this: what sort of society allows a young man to get into that frame of mind in the first place? We must ensure that, as a society, we recognise the impact on the mental health of the young people concerned. The House will wish to consider that. While we must be concerned about AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, I ask hon. Members, who I know hold their views in all sincerity, to bear that in mind in examining the measure's health implications. Their arguments are not supported by the British Medical Association or those who have an interest in, or who spend their professional lives tackling, issues of adolescent sexual health.
  I want to move on to abuse of trust. We want to ensure that the Bill has a proportionate response to the concerns expressed in the debate, both here and in another place last summer. It was a fundamental principle in considering the new protections proposed in the Bill that they should be wholly non-discriminatory. I believe that we have achieved that end.
  The new offence is a useful additional means of addressing concern about the lack of a suitable range of protection for vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds of both sexes. It must form part of a wider programme of work, both statutory and non-statutory. It is in that context that we will address the codes of practice that are so important in ensuring that we reflect the concerns raised by several hon. Members, not least the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who mentioned the impact of the abuse of trust provision on the professions. We believe that it is necessary that the provision should apply to teachers, because teachers stand in loco parentis: that is what distinguishes them from the members of various other professions who also exercise a degree of care and responsibility over children and young people. That is why we have included teachers as we have. There is room for discussion with the professions on the code of practice and we intend that that discussion should take place.
  It is important to recognise what lies behind the marriage exception, a subject raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. He has to understand that the marriage exception is a specific reflection of the importance and special status that the European convention on human rights gives to marriage. It would be wrong if, in the provisions relating to abuse of trust, no reference was made to marriage. It must be emphasised and clearly understood that the provision does not in any way excuse abuses of trust prior to marriage.
  Mr. Bermingham: Given what Ministers have said about the points relating to abuse that I raised earlier and about the codes of practice, is the Minister saying that he
  110
  and the Government have an open mind on the whole subject of the codes of practice, penalties and the way in which abuse is dealt with?
  Mr. Boateng: I assure my hon. Friend that those are indeed matters which we shall examine in Committee and during our consultations and discussions with the professions. We need to get it right, because our first duty is to the children and young people who will be most affected by the legislation.
  Tonight has been a night of speeches that reflect the concern about the issues that is felt in the wider community. We approach the subject from the perspective, not only of rights, but of responsibilities. We have to get the balance right between rights and responsibilities. One word has not been mentioned as often as it might have been: we have heard about tolerance, which is important; but even more important than tolerance is respect—respect for difference and respect for institutions that contain individuals who have a particular responsibility of trust in connection with children and vulnerable people. The debate is about rights and responsibilities, but, above all, it is about respect—respect for one another, respect for childhood and the vulnerability that comes with childhood.
  If we get the balance right and if hon. Members bear that in mind when they cast their vote tonight and subsequently, we stand a good chance of getting the legislation right. There is a great deal riding on our getting it right, for, if we get it wrong, the consequences for many vulnerable and young people will be extremely serious. Tonight, I shall vote in support of the Bill. Hon. Members have an opportunity to make up their own mind. I have no doubt that they will do the right thing.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 130.

  Division No. 46]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Borrow, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Boswell, Tim

  Allan, Richard

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Allen, Graham

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brake, Tom

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Browne, Desmond

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Austin, John

  Burden, Richard

  Ballard, Jackie

  Burgon, Colin

  Barnes, Harry

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Barron, Kevin

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Beard, Nigel

  Caborn, Richard

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Berry, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Best, Harold

  Casale, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Cawsey, Ian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Chaytor, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Chidgey, David

  111

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hanson, David

  Church, Ms Judith

  Harman, Rt Ron Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cooper, Yvette

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hope, Phil

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Illsley, Eric

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Denham, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Duncan, Alan

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keetch, Paul

  Efford, Clive

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Key, Robert

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Flint, Caroline

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Lepper, David

  Galloway, George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike

  Levitt, Tom

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Linton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Livingstone, Ken

  Goggins, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Lock, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McAllion, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCabe, Steve

  Grocott, Bruce

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Grogan, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gunnell, John

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McIsaac, Shona

  112

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWalter, Tony

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Alun

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Milburn, Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Miller, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stott, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mountford, Kali

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mullin, Chris

  Stunell, Andrew

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Swinney, John

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Timms, Stephen

  Pearson, Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pendry, Tom

  Todd, Mark

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pond, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Tyler, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watts, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  White, Brian

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Willis, Phil

  Rendel, David

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sanders, Adrian

  Ann Keen and

  Sawford, Phil

  Mr. Shaun Woodward.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clappison, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Beggs, Roy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Benton, Joe

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brazier, Julian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Breed, Colin

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Day, Stephen

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Butterfill, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  113

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Ernery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Evans, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Fallon, Michael

  Pollard, Kerry

  Flight, Howard

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Randall, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Garnier, Edward

  Rogers, Allan

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gill, Christopher

  Rowlands, Ted

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ruffley, David

  Gray, James

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hayes, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heald, Oliver

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Streeter, Gary

  Swayne, Desmond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lidington, David

  Thompson, William

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tredinnick, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Viggers, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Wardle, Charles

  Maginnis, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N

  Malins, Humfrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Mates, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Wilkinson, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Edward Leigh and

  Paice, James

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63(3) (Committal of Bills),
  114
  That Clause 1 of the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
  That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
  That when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 28th January, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to Social Security and Pensions not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

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

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  That the draft Deregulation (Weights and Measures) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 14th December 1998, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Question agreed to.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mrs. Virginia Bottomley be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. Shaun Woodward be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Foster (Hastings and Rye) be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Dr. Doug Naysmith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Iraq
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
10.15 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Madam Speaker: Would Members leaving do so quietly, please? [Interruption.] Order. We are still doing business here.
Mr. Dalyell: I would not have raised in the House the first aspect of sanctions against Iraq—the subject of the Adjournment debate—had it not appeared in the front of a national newspaper this morning. I refer to the relationship between UNSCOM and those who are responsible for UNSCOM. It was asserted that there were working for UNSCOM those who reported to American intelligence and to British intelligence.
At first hand, some seven weeks ago, I went along with Mr. Bill Griffin and the former Irish Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, and persuaded them to go to UNSCOM when we were in Baghdad. I can only report to the House what happened. I asked whether it was true that Mr. Scott Ritter was, as an ex-Marine, reporting information from a United Nations organisation to the United States. The answer was that he was, and that other members of UNSCOM were ashamed of him. Then I heard Albert Reynolds ask some very strong questions about the relationship between UNSCOM inspectors and their own nation states, and the long and the short of it was that, going out of the room, one of the non-American, non-British officials turned round to me and said, "You British cannot be quite so relaxed about this."
On further inquiry, the clear implication was that British officials were indeed reporting to the British Government or—as the press would have it—MI6. If that is so, it is a major undermining of the United Nations. I have given notice of the question. I did not want to make it a matter of public record because it is a delicate and embarrassing subject, but now that it has appeared on the front pages of the press I invite the Government to make some comment on the matter.
Secondly, I shall refer briefly to the statement of Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, the archbishop of the archdiocese for the United States military services, who said that US bombing of Iraq is morally questionable and that US military personnel should question their actions if ordered to take an action that is a clear
"violation of the moral law."
Archbishop O'Brien is quoted as having said to the Catholic chaplains serving in the US armed forces throughout the world that soldiers, airmen, seamen and Marines
"are not exempt from making conscientious decisions"
when confronted with immoral orders. He said:
"I join the bishops of our country as well as the concerned voices of the Holy See and other hierarchies in calling on our president and his advisers to initiate no further military action in the Middle East".
Mr. George Galloway: On the subject of the mounting international opposition to British and American policy, has my hon. Friend had the chance,
116
as I have this evening, to hear the reports coming from Cairo, where the Arab Foreign Ministers are meeting, where, this very afternoon, the Egyptian—friendly Egypt—Foreign Minister, Amr Moussa, had a meeting, indeed an altercation, with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), in which he warned him not to take comfort from Iraq's leaving of the Foreign Ministers' summit because, he said, the Arab Foreign Ministers are unequivocally against any further bombing of Iraq and unequivocally in favour of an early lifting of sanctions?
Mr. Dalyell: There we have the chaplain general of United States forces and the Foreign Minister of friendly Egypt coming to parallel conclusions—chiming with each other. We ought surely to take notice.
Finally, I refer to the statement given at Harvard in November by Denis Halliday, who resigned on principle from his post as UN assistant Secretary-General and chief UN relief co-ordinator for Iraq in protest at the sanctions. The Foreign Office has had an opportunity to study his statement. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and others, Mr. Halliday will be in the House tomorrow. We shall be extremely interested to hear the Government's reply to his points.
Mr. Halliday says in his statement:
"I see the present sanctions regime representing a certain bankruptcy of ideas, simplistic, unsuccessful, without the desired results."
He continues:
"By denying access to oil sales funds necessary to invest in adequate food intake, a balanced diet, in health care, particularly preventive health care, the provision of electric power, and in the availability of potable water, the absence of which kills Iraqi children in large numbers."
Mr. Halliday asserts that
"the monthly death rate of children under five attributable to sanctions ranges from six to seven thousand per month".
I repeat, 6,000 to 7,000 infants per month.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary at the Department for International Development for being present. I have a high regard for that Department and what it has done, but the entire Government and all of us should reflect on what those figures mean. Sanctions are responsible for the deaths of 6,000 to 7,000 Iraqi children a month, in the view of the former UN co-ordinator.
Mr. Halliday goes on to say:
"Continuing sanctions are biting into the fabric of Iraqi society and family behaviour."
Another phenomenon is the growth of corruption, which was largely unknown in Iraq in better times. Those phenomena are concerns of the Iraqi Government today, and already are concerns for Iraqi sociologists of the future. In such circumstances, how can Iraq return to the high moral standards that existed before the disruptions caused by the impact of sanctions?
Mr. Halliday refers to the many advances that women in Iraq had made in recent decades, which have been set back. In many individual cases, opportunities have been lost for ever. When I visited Iraq in 1994 and subsequently in November, it was clear that it was an entirely different Arab state from many. Anyone who saw

117
the powerful film the other night, "Murder in Purdah", about what happens in Pakistan may care to draw a contrast.
Sanctions, according to Denis Halliday, have largely prevented the reconstruction and rehabilitation of war damage and, he goes on,
"today the people of Iraq continue to suffer greatly from the lack of adequate electric power now running at less than 40 per cent. of what it was in 1990."
Mr. Halliday concludes by stating that
"sanctions continue to kill children and sustain high levels of malnutrition. Sanctions are undermining cultural and educational recovery. Sanctions will not change governance to democracy. Sanctions encourage isolation, alienation, and possibly fanaticism. Sanctions may create a danger to peace in the region and in the world. Sanctions destroy Islamic and Iraqi family values. Sanctions have undermined the advancement of women and have encouraged a massive brain drain.
Sanctions destroy the lives of children, their expectations and those of young adults. Sanctions breach the Charter of the United Nations, the Conventions of Human Rights, and the Rights of the Child. Sanctions are counterproductive, and have no positive impact on the leadership and sanctions lead to unacceptable human suffering, often of the young and innocent. As I have said already, I can find no legitimate justification for sustaining economic sanctions under these circumstances. To do so in my view is to disregard the high principles of the United Nations' Charter, the Convention of Human Rights, the very moral leadership and the credibility of the United Nations itself."
Those words were spoken by a man who has given his working life to the United Nations. He went on:
"Continuation also undermines the global role of the United States."
I should like to hear the Government's response to that distinguished Irishman, who will be here tomorrow.
10.26 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has raised a number of issues, which I shall attempt to cover. I, too, shall begin by quoting Mr. Halliday, who said in a speech that he gave at Harvard university last November:
"I am assuming that you consider it appropriate, like I do, for the United Nations to have the power and capacity to attempt to bring into line certain leadership, certain Governments, that are acting outside the bounds of behaviour acceptable to the other Member States."
If that is common ground among those in this House, we must examine precisely what mechanisms are available to the United Nations and to us as part of the international community.
Sanctions were imposed following Iraq's brutal and unprovoked attack on Kuwait in 1990. At the end of the Gulf war in 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution 687, which brought about the ceasefire. That resolution and others implementing it laid down obligations on Iraq on a number of matters, including the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It also made it clear that the Security Council would lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq as and when Iraq complied with its obligations under those resolutions.
I take the strictures from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) about the meeting that is taking place in Cairo, but it is only right to remind the House that, in their final statement, the Arab Foreign Ministers called for a
118
"diplomatic solution in implementing all relevant Security Council resolutions",
and urged
"the Iraqi Government to co-operate with the Security Council in implementing them."
They also urged the Security Council to restore the relationship between the UN and the Iraqi Government in a way that guarantees implementation of the Security Council resolutions properly and objectively.
Thus, there can be no doubt that the resolutions, and the sanctions package that is part of those resolutions, have much wider support than simply that of this House.
Mr. Galloway: It is important that no one is inadvertently misled. The statement by Arab Foreign Ministers said that they have grave concerns about the bombing of Iraq in December and called for no further bombing. It set up a deputation to go to New York to assist the French initiative to lift the economic sanctions. The Foreign Ministers are for the lifting of economic sanctions.
Mr. Lloyd: Nevertheless, the Foreign Ministers are also strongly of the view that Iraq needs to conform to the UN resolutions. That is important in itself, because those resolutions commit Iraq to destroying its programme of weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq formally accepted its obligations under that and other resolutions, but its persistent failure to comply with its undertakings has prolonged the sanctions regime, which my hon. Friends urged the Government to examine in the way that they have. I must remind the House that the sanctions regime was originally envisaged as lasting only for months, not for eight years.
I must give examples of how poor Iraq's record on compliance is. Iraq did not accept the UN demarcation of the border with Kuwait until 1994. Earlier this month, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz questioned that border and referred to parts of Kuwait as Iraqi territory. More than 600 Kuwaitis detained by Iraq during the Gulf war are still unaccounted for. Proportionately, that would be equivalent to 50,000 British citizens.
Overwhelmingly, the Kuwaiti missing are not combatants, but civilians; some are women and some are elderly. To date, Iraq has provided sufficient information to close only three of those cases. Meanwhile, the families of the those who remain unaccounted for continue to live with their uncertainty over the fate of their family members.
Persistent evasion, obstruction and, indeed, mendacity on the part of Iraq have meant that the obligations under resolution 687 relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction—which could have been fulfilled in a few months, if Iraq had co-operated fully with the weapons inspectors—have still not been met. Until they are, Iraq will remain a threat to regional peace and stability. Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction before, with devastating results. In the Kurdish town of Halabja, Saddam ordered the use of chemical weapons, including nerve agents. They killed between 4,000 and 5,000 civilians and injured perhaps 10,000 more.
Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Nothing we have seen or heard from his regime over the past seven years gives us any reason to believe that he would not use them again, if he were given the opportunity.

119
A look at the human rights situation reminds us what sort of regime we are dealing with. The catalogue of repression and human rights violations over the years still shocks. It includes persistent torture of vocal opponents, routine use of the death penalty to deter opposition, mass executions as punishment and deterrent, relentless persecution of religious leaders, whose very existence highlights alternatives to Saddam's regime, and genocide against minorities.
Resolution 688 demands that Iraq put an end to repression and ensure respect for the political and human rights of all Iraqi citizens. Our insistence that Iraq comply with its obligations does not mean that we ignore or attempt to deny the suffering of the Iraqi people—that was an important part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—but we reject the view that lays the blame for their suffering at the door of the international community rather than where it properly belongs—at the door of Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Mr. Tony Benn: Allowing for everything that the Minister has said, what was achieved by the bombing? Are we at war with Iraq? Is it the Government's view that Israel, Turkey or any other country in the world could use the same resolution to attack Iraq? What is the basis of Government policy, other than the fact that they follow Washington and do everything that it tells them to do?
Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend would not expect me to agree with him. This is a well-travelled road and he has been along it on a number of occasions with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others. He well knows that the Government entered into the recent actions against Iraq, first, to deter Iraq, but also to degrade its weapons capacity. That is exactly what was achieved.
I return to sanctions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was particularly keen to discuss. Max van der Stoel, the UN rapporteur on Iraq, talked about the horrendous human rights situation in that country and recorded a catalogue of detail about continued repression and humanitarian abuse in Iraq. He talked about primary responsibility for the precarious food and health situation laying with Iraq and the report gives the reasons for that judgment: Iraq refused to take advantage of the oil for food programme for five years while failing to bring about the lifting of sanctions by refusing to fulfil its obligations.
The report also discusses Iraq's prevarication in negotiations, which caused regular interruption of oil sales, which in turn interrupted the flow of humanitarian supplies. It mentions Iraq's discrimination against those living outside Baghdad in terms of access to medical supplies, and Iraq's restrictions on UN observers of the Iraqi distribution programme, to the extent that areas designated as sensitive areas by the Iraqi Government are rarely, if ever, visited.
While Saddam's regime has allowed the Iraqi people to suffer, the international community, aware of the requirement to find effective ways to meet the needs of the Iraqi people, has sought to protect them from the effects of the embargo, and from the cynical policies of the regime. The sanctions resolutions never prohibited the import of food, medicines and other essential
120
humanitarian supplies. The Security Council is now considering ways of further improving the oil for food programme to offset the effects on the programme of the drop in oil prices, and other ways in which more revenue can be made available for essential humanitarian supplies. Britain has contributed a number of proposals, including a proposal for the removal of the ceiling on the amount of oil that can be sold, and the speeding of approvals through the sanctions committee. We are also suggesting that the European Union should re-examine ways in which it might complement the UN programme.
While we and the rest of the international community strive to help the Iraqi people, however, Saddam has shown over the years that his only interest in the Iraqi people is as a tool of propaganda. His priorities remain to keep the regime in power, and to sustain his armed forces for continued internal repression in preparation for new foreign adventures.
Mr. Galloway: If the international community is trying so hard to shield the civilian population from the effects of the embargo, why does the Minister think that, on the reckoning of Dennis Halliday—a man living and working there—between 6,000 and 7,000 Iraqi children under five, or 250 or more every single day, are dying as a direct result of the sanctions?
Mr. Lloyd: I shall come to that precise point. For a start, the Iraqi Government have chosen, as I said, to ignore the opportunities presented by the oil for food programme. For example, they refuse—despite constant encouragement from the United Nations—to make any effort to prioritise properly what is purchased for the humanitarian programme, or to target the programme on the most vulnerable. They have, for instance, persistently refused to implement targeted feeding programmes for infants, despite evidence of infant malnutrition; nor do they make any attempt to improve the distribution system for humanitarian goods inside Baghdad-controlled Iraq.
It is noticeable that oil for food has had a substantially greater impact on the humanitarian situation in northern Iraq, where the programme is outside the control of Baghdad. We know that the Iraqi Government smuggle large quantities of oil products out of the country for illegal sale. The proceeds of that go to Saddam and his regime, rather than benefiting his long-suffering people.
Let us look at the way in which Iraq tries to prioritise spending of oil for food money. The Iraqi distribution plan for the present six-month phase in the programme allocates less food than it did when the programme was worth only $2 billion; it is now worth some $5.3 billion. It reduces the daily food ration from 2,200 calories to 2,050, and reduces spending on medicine.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that this is political choice made by Saddam Hussein against his own people. That is an undeniable consequence of the way in which he manipulates those programmes.
Let me say a word about the United Kingdom's response. We have taken the lead at the UN in piloting and developing the oil for food arrangements, and seeking to ensure that the revenue is put to proper use. UK direct aid to Iraq continues. Since 1991, Britain has given more than £73 million in aid to Iraq. Our share of European Union spending over the same period amounts to some £23 million. That makes us one of the largest contributors

121
of aid to Iraq. In March last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a new £7 million programme for humanitarian assistance to the people of Baghdad-controlled Iraq. That is in addition to programmes amounting to some £3 million a year, concentrating on northern Iraq, and focusing on the vulnerable and on assistance to mine-affected communities.
Mr. Harry Cohen: If my hon. Friend's argument is that Saddam Hussein is so hostile to his own people that he wants to see them die, why are our western Governments helping him to achieve that aim?
Mr. Lloyd: The aim of the west is to help the Iraqi people through the oil for food programme. That programme is there if Saddam chooses to use it. We know that Saddam prostitutes that programme. We know, for example, that he sought to buy equipment that is totally irrelevant; indeed, it has been blocked by the sanctions committee of the UN because it is irrelevant to the needs of his people. He does not choose to prioritise the poor, or the malnourished children, whose plight my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has rightly raised, and whom the oil for food programme aims to help.
It is certainly true that Britain has led consideration of the debate—a debate that still continues—as to how we make the programme more effective, but the choices that lie behind the programme are the choices made by Saddam Hussein—choices where he chooses to punish his own people, not to give and offer them the assistance that is available under the programme.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I do not know who wrote the Minister's brief, but will he not answer the main thrust of the point that is made: sanctions are a political weapon? They are not designed to hurt, or to destroy the people in a country. They are designed to destabilise the Government against whom they are made. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that sanctions have done that in the case of Iraq—quite the reverse. Sanctions are being relentlessly used as an alibi for Saddam Hussein's regime.
We who support the moves need no lectures on the iniquity of that regime—quite the reverse. We are the first people to condemn it, but will my hon. Friend not understand the point and thrust of the argument? The resolutions have manifestly not only failed to work—that is not a problem—but sustained the very regime that they are designed to bring down. That is the point that we ask him to address: not the iniquity of the regime, not the fact that Saddam is using sanctions as an alibi, but how we in the west are supposed to stop him from doing so.
Mr. Lloyd: I simply reject what my hon. and learned Friend has said. The same argument was used about sanctions against South Africa. It has been used
122
consistently where sanctions have been applied against a regime, but, of course, the sanctions on Iraq are designed to prevent the build-up of weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent the functioning of that military regime.
It is precisely because there is within the sanctions regime an oil for food programme, which allows food and medicines to be purchased by Iraq, that Saddam chooses not to purchase those. It is Saddam himself who prostitutes the regime to penalise his people and to maintain political pressure on his own people. That is where the fault and injustice lie.
I am conscious that I must deal with an issue of particular importance which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has raised: the newspaper allegation, printed, I think, in The Independent on Sunday. He would not expect me to comment on stories about the intelligence services. That policy has been adopted by British Governments over a long period, but I can say—it will deal with the point that he raises and the substance of the newspaper article—that 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. However, 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.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), has stated clearly:
"The UK Government has made clear that all information exchanges between the UK and UNSCOM have been strictly in pursuit of UNSCOM's mandate to dismantle Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction capability."
There is no truth in the allegation that British people seconded to UNSCOM were there for the purpose of spying. I hope that that is the reassurance that my hon. Friend wants. It is clear and unequivocal.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend find out about the role of the name that I have given him?
Mr. Lloyd: The name that my hon. Friend has given me is of one of the people seconded to UNSCOM, but what I have said generally about British secondees to UNSCOM applies equally to that individual.
We are working with partners in the Security Council to establish a new consensus on the way forward. That must address the continuing need for Iraq to fulfil its obligations on weapons of mass destruction. We are also looking at how to encourage humanitarian assistance—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Government are spending on research into the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. [65533]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As I told the House earlier today,Official Report, column 7, my Department has a programme of research into Gulf Veterans' illnesses covering four main areas. So far, about £1.9m has been spent on these studies and we estimate that they will cost a further £4m to complete.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated concerning the health effects on service personnel of depleted uranium shells used in the Gulf War. [64225]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence is currently funding four research programmes into different aspects of Gulf veterans' illnesses. However, none of these programmes is specifically aimed at investigating the relationship between possible exposure to depleted uranium (DU) and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans. The MOD has previously published the Defence Radiological Protection Service's (now the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's Radiation Protection Service) 1993 assessment of the radiological and chemical hazards of DU. The MOD continues to monitor published research which may be relevant to the issue of Gulf veterans' illnesses, including any material concerning DU.

  I have asked my Department to collate the information which it possesses concerning mechanisms which would be used to test for the presence of uranium in the human body. I will publish this work shortly.

  The MOD is well aware that a link has been suggested between exposure to DU and Gulf veterans' illnesses. However, this is only one of a number of factors which have been suggested as causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses and, pending further medical and scientific evidence, my Department is keeping an open mind on this issue.

  Armed Forces (Education and Training)
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to increase education and training provision in the armed forces. [65534]

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to increase education and training opportunities within the armed forces. [65551]
  2
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We already provide a wide range of education and training opportunities for Armed Forces personnel. Our 'Learning Forces' initiative extends from recruitment to resettlement and beyond. It is a major contribution to the Government's commitment to improving educational opportunities and to ensuring that the qualifications Service personnel receive are fully recognised and transferable when they return to civilian life.

  Queen's Regulations
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to amend Queen's Regulations. [65535]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As with primary legislation, Queen's Regulations are constantly kept under review and amended when necessary, either as a result of changes to primary legislation, departmental policy, or for administrative reasons.

  Defence Medical Services
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Government plan to spend over the next four years on the Defence Medical Services. [65536]

  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Government plan to spend over the next four years on the Defence Medical Services. [65541]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This Government are fully committed to improving the present state of the Defence Medical Services. To this end, as I announced recently, an additional £140 million pounds is being put into the Defence Medical Services as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. This sum is spread over the current financial year and the next three years to March 2002. We plan to maintain increased expenditure in subsequent years.

  Shoeburyness
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the disposal of the MOD sites in Shoeburyness; and if he will make a statement. [65537]

  Mr. Spellar
  Horseshoe Barracks and Old Ranges, including Gunners Park at Shoeburyness have been declared surplus to MOD's requirements and are now being prepared for disposal. A draft Planning Brief, which was subject to a public consultation exercise was approved by the Borough Council's Planning and Transportation Committee on 19 January and will be placed before the full Council on 25 February. Marketing of the site will begin once the Council have approved the brief. DERA are currently examining possible development opportunities at the New Ranges. Should any part of the New Ranges become surplus to MOD requirement, the Borough Council has suggested that it be the subject of a separate Planning Brief.

  Cadets (Expenditure)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's current expenditure plans in relation to cadets. [65538]
  3
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's expenditure plans in relation to cadets. [65542]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are fully committed to supporting the Cadet Forces. Our planned expenditure in the current financial year totals some £58 million. As a further indication of its commitment, the Government previously announced an increase in cadet forces' expenditure of £3 million over the next four years. This is in addition to up to £12 million which will be made available in order to ensure that those cadet units affected by Reserve Forces' Restructuring announced within the Strategic Defence Review will be provided with alternative accommodation.

  Operation Desert Fox
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of Operation Desert Fox. [65539]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Operation Desert Fox was a success. It met our military objectives. We assess that 87 per cent. of targets were damaged or destroyed and that the ability of Saddam Hussein to make or use chemical and biological weapons or otherwise threaten his neighbours has been set back significantly. I have sent a full report on the effects of Operation Desert Fox to all Members and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the number of civilian casualties caused by the bombing of Iraq during December 1998. [65480]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The risk of civilian casualties was a major consideration in selecting targets during Operation Desert Fox and only precision guided weapons were used where there was any risk of collateral damage. Indeed, Operation Desert Fox was the most accurate bombing campaign in which we have ever been involved. Whilst the Iraqi regime have prevented UN humanitarian workers from independently viewing all but a carefully selected few of the sites hit, we are confident that civilian casualties were minimal.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the selection of targets during the recent bombing of Iraq was influenced by reports received from any member of UNSCOM. [66001]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: I do not discuss detailed operational issues and withhold such information under category 1a (National Security and Defence) of the Code of Conduct. Both the UK and US Governments have made it clear, however, that all information exchanges between themselves and UNSCOM have been strictly in pursuit of UNSCOM's mandate to dismantle Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction capability. Target selection for Operation Desert Fox was a very thorough and detailed process involving information from a wide variety of sources.

  Nuclear Weapons (Russian Federation)
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on measures to 4
  stockpile tactical nuclear weapons in the Russian Federation and to prevent radioactive substances of military origin being traded. [65540]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Russia continues to maintain physical security arrangements at its nuclear weapon storage sites. Matters relating to tactical nuclear weapons are a subject of discussion in the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. We and Allies continue to seek to develop the dialogue in this area. International efforts to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear materials are also co-ordinated through the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in Kosovo. [65543]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Kosovo. [65550]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe),Official Report, column 11.

  Armed Forces (Overstretch)
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to reduce overstretch in the armed forces. [65544]

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to reduce overstretch in the armed forces. [65547]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are firmly committed to addressing overstretch in the armed forces. We are taking a number of steps to increase recruitment to the armed forces which continues to improve for all three Services. The Army, in particular, anticipates meeting its challenging target for soldier recruitment this year, for the first time since 1991.

  We are also making efforts to improve retention in the armed forces. Our new "Policy for the People" is designed to make the services a more attractive career, both for those already serving and for those considering joining. The Policy includes significant educational and training opportunities for service personnel, and improvements to Service life, for the forces themselves and their families.

  In addition, the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review should reduce overstretch in the Services by improving the flexibility and operational effectiveness of the armed forces through better assignment of resources to commitments.

  Global Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to promote global nuclear disarmament. [65545]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King),Official Report, column 14.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the involvement of Her Majesty's Government's armed forces in the current situation in Sierra Leone. [65546]

  Mr. George Robertson
  HMS Norfolk was sent to Sierra Leone to demonstrate the UK's commitment to promoting peace and stability and to support our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts there. The ship is liaising with the Government of Sierra Leone and the Military Observer Group of the Economic Community of West African States forces. The ship's helicopter has already delivered some much-needed medical supplies provided by the UK Government to the devastated main hospital in Freetown. There are no plans for UK armed forces to become involved in the military conflict in support of the Government of Sierra Leone and the Military Observer Group of the Economic Community of West African States.

  It is planned that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker Oakleaf will re-supply HMS Norfolk on 26 January. We are using Oakleaf's spare container capacity to transport further humanitarian aid to Freetown provided by the UK Government.

  Seven UK military personnel were deployed in Sierra Leone with the UN monitoring mission. All but one have now been withdrawn by the UN as part of a reduction in their mission.

  Trident
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in the construction of the fourth Trident submarine. [65548]

  Mr. George Robertson
  HMS Vengeance, the fourth Trident submarine, was launched in September last year. Contractors Sea Trials are due to start in the Spring.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage reduction in Trident warhead totals typically deployed on each submarine since 1 May 1997. [65555]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 16 July 1998,Official Report, column 237, Trident submarines had typically deployed on deterrent patrol with 60 warheads. One outcome of the Strategic Defence Review was our decision that each Trident submarine will carry a reduced load of 48 warheads. This is a 20 per cent. reduction in warheads carried.

  Single Soldiers' Accommodation
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve single soldiers' accommodation. [65549]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have a firm commitment to continue to improve the standard of accommodation for all soldiers. Work is currently underway on a programme of major capital works to deliver these improvements.

  Iraq
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit the Gulf states to discuss Iraq. [65552]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I hope to visit a number of Gulf states in the coming weeks to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including Iraq.

  Chile (Military Equipment Orders)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom of the recent cancellation of military equipment orders by the Government of Chile. [65553]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am not aware of the recent cancellation of any defence equipment orders from the UK by the Government of Chile.

  43 (Wessex) Brigade
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on proposals to move the headquarters of 43 (Wessex) Brigade from Exeter to Bulford; and if he will make a statement. [65554]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I have received a number of representations about our plans for Headquarters 43 (Wessex) Brigade, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), and the hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), and from Devon County Council.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards establishing a defence diversification agency. [65556]

  Mr. Spellar
  As foreshadowed in our White Paper ("Defence Diversification: Getting the most of defence technology", Cm 4088 published November 1998), the Defence Diversification Agency began operating last month.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment his Department made of the possibility of moving a TA battalion HQ from south to north Wales during its consideration of the restructuring of the TA; and what estimate it made of the cost; [65015]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the benefits of transferring a battalion headquarters from south Wales to north Wales. [63812]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are at present two Infantry battalion Headquarters in Wales, one in the North of the principality and the other in the South. The amalgamation of TA infantry units in Wales into one battalion will require only one of these headquarters in the future, necessitating a choice to be made between the two for the new TA Infantry battalion Headquarters. Taking into account the recommendation of the TAVRA, we decided that the Infantry battalion Headquarters should
  7
  be based in Cardiff. The cost of basing the battalion Headquarters in either of the two locations was taken into account as part of the considerations.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has(a) to improve recruitment of officers in the north Wales TA and (b) to fill the existing officer vacancies in the north Wales TA. [65021]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We plan to launch a new national recruit marketing campaign, beginning in February 1999, as part of the launch of the new TA structure. In addition, we will encourage the transfer of suitable TA volunteers by the creation of a nationwide TA 'Job Shop', and by making arrangements to identify those who wish to take up these opportunities and to match individuals to posts where possible.

  Northern Ireland (Observation Structures)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the location of the structures other than surveillance towers that are maintained by the security forces in Northern Ireland for a variety of observation purposes referred to in his answer of 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 443–44. [65997]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: All Security Force bases in Northern Ireland have an observation function to some degree or other, for example, guard towers to maintain local security. There are currently 43 bases used by the British Army, including the Royal Irish Regiment, in Northern Ireland which are occupied by a platoon or more of troops. These include bases which are exclusively military or shared --with the RUC and are listed by Brigade, as follows:
  3rd Infantry Brigade

  Bessbrook

  RUC Crossmaglen

  RUC Forkhill

  RUC Newtownhamilton

  Drumadd Barracks

  RUC Keady

  RUC Middletown

  Mahon Barracks

  Abercorn Barracks and Ballykinler Training Centre

  Rathfriland

  Aughnacloy

  Dungannon

  Cookstown

  8th Infantry Brigade

  RUC Lisnaskea

  Clogher

  Clooney Base

  Ebrington Barracks

  Fort George

  Magherafelt

  Shackleton Barracks

  Lisanelly Barracks

  St. Lucia Barracks

  Grosvenor Barracks

  Magilligan Training Centre

  8

  St. Patrick's Barracks

  RUC Strabane

  Coleraine (Laurel Hill House)

  39th Infantry Brigade

  RUC Girdwood Park

  RUC Ladas Drive

  RUC Grosvenor Road

  Moscow Camp and Airport Jetty

  Musgrave Park Hospital

  Duke of Connaught Unit

  Malone Road

  RUC Woodbourne

  Carrickfergus

  Massereene Barracks

  Steeple Barracks

  Thiepval Barracks

  Kinnegar

  Palace Barracks

  Long Kesh

  Aldergrove.

  Notes:

  1. At the time of my previous answer of 3 November 1998, Official Report, column 445, there were 44 bases occupied by a platoon or more of troops. Fort Whiterock within 39 InfBde was decommissioned on 11 December 1998 and dismantling of the base is under way.

  2. The list does not include RUC stations which have a token military presence, permanent vehicle check point (PVCPs) or patrol bases which were previously PVCPs.

  Project Horizon
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what alternative systems to Project Horizon are available to the Royal Navy; [66749]

  (2) what representations he has received from European partners concerning Project Horizon; [66755]

  (3) what departmental funds have been spent to date on Project Horizon; [66750]

  (4) what plans he has for his Department's future participation in Project Horizon. [66754]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: The Common New Generation Frigate, CNGF, is a French/Italian/UK collaborative project, comprising of two programmes, the Horizon warship and the Principal Anti-Air Missile System—PAAMS. We have achieved satisfactory progress on PAAMS with our partners, but we require urgent and similar progress on the Horizon warship. We are looking to a successful outcome to the current difficulties; an affordable, effective warship and the establishment of a robust industrial structure to manage the development and build of the warship and its systems. The National Armament Directors met on 14 January 1999 to discuss, among other things, progress on CNGF. No final decisions have been taken, and industry has been asked to provide definitive responses on the areas of concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence intends to meet his French and Italian counterparts shortly to discuss these issues further. Clearly, if rapid progress on these matters is not forthcoming, we would need to consider the option of alternative strategies, including a national warship, to

  9
  ensure that the Royal Navy's requirement is fulfilled. The departmental spend on the Horizon programme to the 31 December 1998 was £75 million. The majority of this spend was on feasibility and assessment Studies.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has sent to the request of the Government of the Sudan that a British inspection team be sent to the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum. [67622]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), on 30 November 1998,Official Report, column 96, to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

  REME (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the assessments which are required to establish a full costing of the move of HQ 101 Battalion REME from Chorley to Queensferry which have not yet been prepared. [65019]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A full costing of the move will depend on finalising what modifications are required at the Queensferry site, the cost of re-locating staff who transfer to the new location, the cost of any redundancies found to be necessary, and the cost of re-locating the HQ's equipment and vehicles. From the costings to date, it is already clear that running cost savings will arise from the co-location of HQ 101 Battalion REME at the Queensferry site.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will place in the Library a copy of the latest version of the memorandum of understanding between the MOD and the Child Support Agency. [66063]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: I have now placed a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Defence and the Child Support Agency in the Library of the House. I have not been able to do so until now as there had been a delay in the signing of the Memorandum. The delay resulted from copies of the latest version of the Memorandum, which had been signed on behalf of the Ministry of Defence and forwarded to the Child Support Agency for signature by the Agency's Chief Executive, being lost in transit.

  Infra-red Technology
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if infra-red technology is listed by his Department as a key defence technology. [66663]

  Mr. Spellar
  Infra-red technology has a wide spectrum of applications in both defence and civil sectors. Certain elements of infra-red technology are listed as key defence technologies.

  Competition
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to ensure that 10
  technology developed partly using his Department's funding is given the opportunity to compete for sub-systems work when private contractors are given overall technical responsibility. [66662]

  Mr. Spellar
  Companies involved in developing technology funded wholly, or in part, by the MOD can incorporate both technology into their competitive tenders for subsequent work, subject to the usual rules of competition and licensing.

  Service Lives
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the anticipated service life of(a) Tornado GR4 aircraft engines, (b) Eurofighter aircraft airframes and (c) Type 42 ships. [66664]

  Mr. Spellar
  The anticipated service life of these respective equipments is as follows:

  (a) Tornado GR4 engines—25 years.

  (b) Eurofighter aircraft airframe—25 years.

  (c) Type 42 destroyers—in excess of 22 years but varies for individual vessels in the class.

  HMS Ark Royal
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost of the future refit of HMS Ark Royal; and when he expects the refit to commence. [66700]

  Mr. Spellar
  The estimate of the cost of the future refit of HMS Ark Royal is commercially sensitive as we are still engaged in contract negotiations. I am, therefore, withholding the information under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. On current plans the refit is due to commence in May 1999.

  International Military Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis International Military Services (Iran) is trading; and if he will make a statement on its activities. [66984]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: I understand that IMS Iran Ltd. ceased trading in 1991.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis International Military Services Ltd. is trading; and if he will make a statement on its activities. [66998]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: International Military Services Ltd. ceased trading in July 1991, and only remains in being until its outstanding obligations are discharged.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis International Military Services (Saudi Arabia) is trading; and if he will make a statement on its activities. [66985]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: I understand that IMS Saudi Arabia Ltd. ceased trading as at 1 January 1985.

  Defence Estate
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist for publicising the public access arrangements to the defence estate; and what plans he has to publish the arrangements on the internet. [67003]

  Mr. Spellar
  Public access to the Defence Estate is promoted via the booklet "Walks on MOD Lands", which is issued on request free of charge. There are also leaflets detailing local access arrangements, available from a number of establishments. Whereas access has to be restricted at certain times because of live firing for example, details of the closures are published in the local press and in some areas, broadcast on the local radio. The Dartmoor training area also has a manned telephone line to answer queries, as do some other training areas. It is intended to publish information about access to the Defence estate on the Internet, although no date has yet been set.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what income was received by the MoD estate from(a) agricultural lettings, (b) sporting rights and (c) commercial lettings in each year since 1994–95. [67004]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  £

  (a) Agricultural lettings

  (b) Sporting rights

  (c) Commercial lettings

  1994–95

  3,787,972

  75,974

  5,307,870

  1995–96

  4,011,546

  44,276

  5,693,040

  1996–97

  3,794,769

  51,973

  5,897,999

  1997–98

  3,674,562

  58,762

  9,036,551

  1998–99

  3,802,096

  43,521

  7,644,033

  Notes:

  1. The figures shown for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are approximate totals as a dedicated computerised system was not set up until 1996.

  2. The figures for 1998–99 have been estimated up until the end of the financial year.

  Departmental Activities (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the environmental impact of his Department's activities. [65522]

  Mr. Spellar
  An Environmental Management Systems (EMS) Working Group has been established to develop an MOD-wide EMS based on ISO 14001. The intention is to use the EMS as a vehicle to enable my Department to meet its Greening Government commitment and to contribute to the Government's sustainable development objectives.

  UN Weapons Inspectors
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) members of the staff of his Department and (b) persons otherwise attached to his Department have served with the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq since 1991. [67019]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The answers are as follows:

  (a) Approximately 220 MOD personnel have served with UNSCOM since 1991. More precise figures are not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  (b) None.

  Royal Navy (Aircraft Carriers)
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to develop new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. [67669]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Strategic Defence Review set out our plans to replace our existing aircraft carriers from 2012 with two larger new-generation carriers, each capable of operating up to 50 aircraft, fixed wing and helicopters. The Invitation To Tender for the initial assessment phase of the CVF project has been released to industry today.

  The new carriers will be acquired through SMART procurement methods, beginning with an assessment phase. This will have two main stages: first, the examination of a wide variety of carrier design options, which will also inform our choice of Future Carrier Borne Aircraft; and, secondly, detailed work to determine the carriers' design parameters and to reduce technological risk. The assessment phase is expected to be completed in 2003, paving the way for the full development and construction of the two new aircraft carriers.

  An Integrated Project Team, IPT, of MOD and industry personnel will manage the procurement. As part of this new approach, the IPT's leader's post will be filled by open competition.

  RAF Manston
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations his Department conducted with the Civil Aviation Authority prior to stating in its sales literature for RAF Manston the end of March as a completion date. [67366]

  Mr. Spellar
  In accordance with CAA licensing procedures, no formal consultation could take place prior to the appointment of a licensee for the Airfield. This could only follow the exchange of a conditional contract. However, some informal discussions did take place on matters of detail.

  Highly Enriched Uranium Production
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if United Kingdom production levels of highly enriched uranium are adequate to meet current demand. [65526]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The United Kingdom has not produced highly enriched uranium, HEU, for defence purposes since 1962. As stated in Supporting Essay 5 to the Strategic Defence Review, the HEU held by the Ministry of Defence is required to meet current defence requirements. Production for civil purposes is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Joint Helicopter Command
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the formation of the Joint Helicopter Command proposed in the Strategic Defence Review. [67855]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In July 1998, following the Strategic Defence Review, I announced our intention to create a Joint Helicopter Command to pool the expertise of the three Services in the operation of Battlefield helicopter fleets and so enhance their fighting effectiveness.
  13
  I have now accepted the recommendation of the Joint Helicopter Command Study Team that the Command be based at the Army's Land Command headquarters at Wilton, Wiltshire. The headquarters will form on 1 October this year and will be fully operational by 1 April 2000.

  The work of the Study Team has also confirmed that the Joint Helicopter Command should bring together, under a single joint organisation, the Royal Navy's Commando helicopters, all operational Army Air Corps helicopters, including the whole of 16 Air Assault Brigade which in future will include the Attack Helicopter, and the RAF's Support Helicopters. Its role will be to direct the training, planning and resourcing of these forces across the range of defence missions and tasks, thereby making most effective use of the available assets. The Command will draw on the best practices from each of the Services, while retaining and building upon individual Service identity and ethos. Single Service units will continue to be commanded and manned by personnel from that Service, and a mix of Navy, Army, Air Force and Civil Service personnel will man the Headquarters.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact relating to the most recent visit to Britain of Senator Pinochet his Department had with(a) the Chilean Military Attaché and (b) others in the Chilean Embassy; and what was the nature and outcome of such discussions. [67281]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am not aware of any formal contact between the Ministry of Defence and the Chilean Embassy about the arrangements for Senator Pinochet' s visit to the UK in October last year. Discussions about the UK's defence relations with Chile have continued with the Chilean Military Attaché and others in the Chilean Embassy since Senator Pinochet's arrest. Inevitably, issues arising from Senator Pinochet's arrest have been mentioned from time to time in the margins of these discussions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committee Chairmen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Council if she will introduce salaries for Select Committee Chairmen. [66813]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no plans to do so.

  Register of Members' Interests
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Council if she will recommend changes to the Register of Members' Interest to require all pecuniary outside interests to be listed and outside earnings to be shown in appropriate bands. [67371]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life announced on 17 December 1998 that it would review the recommendations of its first report (Cm. 2850) which dealt with, among other things, the outside interests of MPs and the register of interests. I have no plans to propose changes to the rules on registration of interests 14
  before the Neill Committee reports, but Members and others can make suggestions direct to the Neill Committee.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has for parliamentary scrutiny of the Regional Development Agencies. [66188]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Regional Development Agencies are non-departmental public bodies and Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for their activities in the usual way.

  The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 requires the accounts of each RDA to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Copies of the accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on them will be sent to the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions who will lay them before each House of Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor General also has powers to carry out value for money studies on the RDAs.

  RDAs are also required to submit their annual reports to the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions who will lay copies before each House of Parliament.

  Each RDA will have an Accounting Officer, usually the Chief Executive, who will be accountable to Parliament through the Public Accounts Committee for the expenditure of public money.

  RDAs are also open to scrutiny by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee. They have just begun their second inquiry into RDAs.

  I also recently announced that I will be submitting a memorandum to the Modernisation Committee inviting them to examine the possibility of reviving and adapting the Standing Committee on regional affairs. Matters relating to RDAs would certainly be within the remit of such a Committee.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the President of the Council what is her current estimate of the total cost to public sector bodies of preparing to avoid millennium bug problems. [67387]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I do not believe that it is possible or worthwhile to attempt to establish the true cost of the Year 2000 preparations for the public sector as a whole given that each organisation assesses its costs in different ways. Typically departments' plans include the additional costs posed by the bug such as contractors, and new systems. They do not tend to include in house resources or routine system up-grades. I do publish the cost estimates for central Government and key elements of the public sector as part of the quarterly reports to Parliament. The total cost for central Government is estimated at £400 million, and will be found from within existing budgets. This figure has remained fairly stable over the last year.
  15
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the President of the Council if she will require public bodies to publish details of the contingency plans which they are developing to deal with the consequences of the millennium bug. [67386]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have asked all Departments and agencies to have initial contingency plans in place by the end of this month. I will be consulting colleagues about how much of the detail of the plans could sensibly be put into the public domain.

TREASURY

  Ultra Low Sulphur Petrol
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage the use of ultra low sulphur petrol. [66449]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: The Chancellor is aware of forthcoming changes in standards for fuel quality, including the timescale for achievement of these standards. These issues will be carefully considered in the run up to the Budget.

  Salaries (Euro)
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make arrangements for civil servants to have the option of receiving their salaries in euros. [66508]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: There are no plans to offer civil service staff the option of receiving salaries in euro while the United Kingdom is outside the single currency zone.

  However, Departments with staff posted in eurozone countries have taken steps to enable them to draw their entitlements in euro when arrangements in the host country make that appropriate.

  Oil Tax Revenues
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the UK oil tax revenues from 1999–2000 onwards assuming an oil price of 10 US dollars per barrel; and if he will make a statement. [65701]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: Reliable estimates cannot easily be made. They would require detailed assumptions on how an oil price of $10 per barrel would affect the future levels of production and expenditure. A forecast of f1.3 billion for 1999–2000 was published in the Pre-Budget Report in November last year based on the oil price being flat at about $13 per barrel (in real terms).

  Government Debt (Yield Differential)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has put in place to achieve his policy of reducing the differential between yields on German and British long-term Government debt; what bench mark maturity and yield differential he is using for this target; and if he will make a statement. [65677]
  16
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: The Government introduced their new monetary policy framework, with Bank of England independence, to ensure that their commitment to price stability is delivered in practice. Maintaining low inflation will help reduce the differential between yields on German and British long-term debt. Since the Government came into office, the differential has fallen by 1.1 percentage points.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department will publish the final version of PFI Technical Note 1 on How to Account for PFI transactions. [65501]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]: Shortly.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what addition there would be to Government borrowing if all approved capital developments provided through PFI were to be financed by traditional Government borrowing. [66507]

  Mr. Milburn
  Figures for the total value of private sector investment in the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review resulting from PFI projects were given in the answer by the then Paymaster General to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) on 19 November 1998,Official Report, columns 846–47.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the monthly revenue raised by air passenger duty since its inception. [66079]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Information in the form requested can be found in the Government Statistical Service publication "Financial Statistics". Table 2.1D "Customs and Excise taxes" shows monthly figures for receipts from Air Passenger Duty.

  Air Passenger Duty was introduced on 1 November 1994. However as duty is required to be paid in the month after that in which the flight took place, the first duty was received in December 1994.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost for collecting air passenger duty(a) to the Treasury and (b) to individual airlines. [66078]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The annual cost to the Treasury of collecting Air Passenger Duty is approximately £400,000. The annual cost to individual airlines will vary depending on the business practices of each airline.

  UK Abatement
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was received as a result of the United Kingdom's abatement in each year since it was established under the Fontainebleau agreement. [66121]
  17
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The cash amounts made available to the United Kingdom due to its abatement, together with an estimate for this financial year, are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  1985–86

  823

  1986–87

  1,343

  1987–88

  1,137

  1988–89

  1,600

  1989–90

  1,317

  1990–91

  1,838

  1991–92

  2,428

  1992–93

  1,993

  1993–94

  2,350

  1994–95

  1,648

  1995–96

  1,576

  1996–97

  2,418

  1997–98

  1,563

  1998–99 (estimate)

  2,726

  Total

  24,762

  Fraud (EU)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action was agreed under the last British presidency of the EU to combat fraud. [66124]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Government made the fight against fraud one of the priorities of the UK Presidency of the EU, ensuring that it was kept high on the agenda. Priority was given to work on the recommendations of the High-Level Group on Organised Crime. Progress was reported to the Cardiff European Council, including conclusion of the pre-accession pact on organised crime with applicant countries, establishment of a European judicial network to improve practical co-operation and improvements to the mechanism for collecting and analysing data on organised crime. Progress was made on legislation to improve the working of the transit system and preparation of the new computerised transit system, aimed at making the Community transit system less vulnerable to fraud. Work continued on the SEM2000 initiative with measures to improve financial management and fight fraud both in the Commission managed programmes and in the 82 per cent. of the EC budget which is administered by Member States. The 19 May ECOFIN Council was devoted to financial management and anti-fraud issues including considering the annual Fight against fraud report and the Commission's anti-fraud work programme for 1998–99. The Council conclusions emphasised the importance of this work.

  Tax and Social Security Contributions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures for the total tax and social security contributions from 1997–98 to 2002–03 on the basis used in Table 4.5 of the July 1997 Red Book, HC 85. [64638]

  Ms Hewitt
  The figures for net taxes and social security contributions as a per cent. of GDP in table B9 of the Pre-Budget Report (PBR) are on a cash basis. The 18
  corresponding figures in table 4.5 of the July 1997 Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR) are on an accruals basis. Moving from a cash to an accruals basis requires the addition of accruals adjustments to the cash figures. Accruals adjustments for tax receipts were forecast to be about 0.1 per cent. of GDP in 1998–99, and to remain at about this level in each of the forecast years shown in table B9 of the PBR.

  Under national accounts conventions at the time of the July 1997 FSBR, a small amount of MIRAS and of life assurance premium tax reliefs were scored as public expenditure. These amounts do not significantly affect the PBR tax/GDP ratio. The Working Families Tax Credit will only be introduced in October 1999 and hence no assumptions about its treatment were made at the time of the July 1997 FSBR.

  EMU
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of sterling's performance against the criteria set for membership of economic and monetary union by the European Commission; and if he will make a statement. [66162]

  Ms Hewitt
  In line with the Council decision of 3 May 1998, under Article 109j(4) of the Treaty, the Government accept that exchange rate stability is an important precondition for membership of the single currency. The Government are committed to ensuring a stable and competitive exchange rate for sterling over the medium term, consistent with our objective of price stability. The Government have no intention of rejoining the ERM.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those(a) member states and (b) community bodies which (i) support and (ii) oppose Her Majesty's Government's position that UK accession to the single currency does not require prior participation in an exchange rate mechanism. [66378]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have no intention of rejoining the ERM. The Government have never believed that the Treaty provisions on membership of the ERM could be applied mechanically given the changes that have occurred since the Treaty was agreed in 1991. The Recommendation of the Commission under Article 109j(2) in March 1998 and the Decision of the Council under Article 109j(4) in May 1998 both avoided a mechanical approach to the application of the criteria, allowing for the exercise of judgment provided by the Treaty.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, for the purposes of calculating the specific comparability of the DTI and DETR (non local government) for the Welsh block for CSR, expenditure on nationalised industries was included in the calculation; if such decision represented a change in the practice applied in 1998–99; and what his assessment is of the impact of this decision on the Welsh block; [66187]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 January 1999, Official Report, columns 20–21, on departmental expenditure, what was the specific comparability determined by the

  19
  coverage of Welsh Office services for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99 in each of (a) the DTI, (b) the DETR (non local government) and (c) the DFEE; [66185]

  (3) what changes have been made in the method of calculating the comparability percentage relevant for calculating the Welsh block in each of (a) the DTI, (b) DETR (non local government) and (c) the DFEE for the year 1999–2000 as compared to the year 1998–99. [66186]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government maintained the total allocations for the Welsh Office for 1997–98 and 1998–99 determined by the previous Government in the 1996 Public Expenditure Survey. The comparabilities applied within the 1996 Survey were the responsibility of the previous Government.

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on Phase 2 of the pensions review; and if he will make a statement. [66230]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 14 January,Official Report, columns 283–84.

  2001 Census
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the 2001 census will include a question to enable the calculation of the number of people living outside Wales who speak Welsh. [66190]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's proposal for the 2001 Census, including the topics to be covered, will shortly be published in a White Paper.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed in each of the last 10 years; and what are the projected numbers of new cases estimated by his Department over the next five years. [65821]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Excess winter mortality, England and Wales 1997–78 to 1997–98

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85+

  1977–78

  Excess winter deaths1

  41,240

  12,540

  15,090

  10,780

  Percentage increase in mortality in winter

  23

  19

  27

  37

  1982–83

  Excess winter deaths1

  42,820

  11,270

  16,660

  12,350

  Percentage increase in mortality in winter

  24

  18

  28

  40

  1987–88

  Excess winter deaths1

  32,970

  8,160

  12,420

  10,490

  Percentage increase in mortality in winter

  18

  14

  20

  29

  1992–93

  Excess winter deaths1

  25,650

  5,690

  9,330

  9,490

  Percentage increase in mortality in winter

  15

  11

  16

  22

  20
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Vernon Coaker, dated 25 January 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on prostate cancer.
  The number of new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed from 1971 to 1992 in England and Wales are given in "Cancer statistics—Registrations" (MB1 series). Estimates for 1993–1997 are given in "Estimates of newly diagnosed cases of cancer, England and Wales, 1993–1997" (Monitor MB1 98/2). Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House. No official projections are available.

  Hypothermia Fatalities
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death took place in England and Wales in(a) 1997, (b) 1992, (c) 1987, (d) 1982 and (e) 1977 amongst those (i) of all ages, (ii) aged 60 to 74, (iii) aged 74 to 84 and (iv) aged over 85 years; what were the winter mortality rates for (1) the population as a whole, (2) people aged 60 to 74, (3) people aged 75 to 84 and (4) people aged 85 years and over; and what the percentage increase was in each group compared to non-winter deaths in 1997–98, 1992–93,1987–88,1982–83 and 1977–78. [66381]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Eddie O'Hara, dated 25 January 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on how many deaths, where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death, took place in England and Wales.
  The information requested is shown in the tables below.

  Deaths for selected age-groups where hypothermia was mentioned as the main or contributory cause of death in England and Wales 1977–971

  Year

  All ages

  60–74

  75–84

  85+

  1977

  594

  139

  232

  155

  1982

  645

  147

  224

  188

  1987

  551

  117

  205

  151

  1992

  329

  57

  115

  117

  1997

  357

  51

  127

  127

  1 Data for 1997 are based on deaths that occurred during the year, deaths for all other years are based on those registered during the year

  21

  Excess winter mortality, England and Wales 1977–78 to 1997–98

  All ages

  60–74

  75–54

  85+

  1997–98 2

  Excess winter deaths1

  23,220

  4,940

  7,890

  9,140

  Percentage increase in mortality in winter

  13

  11

  14

  19

  1 Rounded to the nearest 10

  2 Provisional

  Excess winter deaths are defined as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average of the number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

  National Minimum Wage
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those who will benefit from the national minimum wage are resident in Doncaster, Central. [66566]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Rosie Winterton, dated 25 January 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the National Minimum Wage (NMW).
  Available information is taken from the New Earnings Survey (NES). As the NES does not collect information on employees' home addresses I have provided information for those who work, not live, in Doncaster Central.
  The NMW will become effective in April 1999 and has been set at £3.60 for workers aged over 21. A development rate of £3.00 per hour will apply for those aged 18 to 21. Workers aged 16 and 17 and all those apprenticeships will be exempt.
  The Low Pay Commission, in arriving at their recommendations, had to adjust 1999 pay rates to 1998 values. Their methodology produces £3.50 and £2.90 as the 1998 values of the government's preferred rates.
  The latest available information, from the 1998 NES, shows that of those over 21 years of age who are affected by the NMW in the UK, 0.3 per cent. work in the parliamentary constituency of Doncaster Central. The information is given as a percentage of workers because appropriate grossing factors for the NES sample are not available at very detailed levels of disaggregation. I am unable to provide data for employees aged 18 to 21 years because the sample size is too small for a reliable estimate to be produced. I will arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Al Shifa Factory, Khartoum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the importance of anti-parasitic products produced at the Al Shifa plant in maintaining animal health in Sudan. [67645]

  Clare Short
  Our assistance to Sudan is concentrated on the most pressing humanitarian needs and we are not involved in animal health programmes.
  22
  Because of the civil war, any drugs produced by the Al Shifa plant in Khartoum would not have been available in the rebel held south, where most of the suffering occurs.

  The main threat to animal health in Sudan is rinderpest. The 1998 UN Consolidated Appeal states that
  "the conflict has completely destroyed the pre-war annual Pan-African Rinderpest Campaign vaccination coverage and animal health services".

  The long running civil war is the prime cause of suffering in Sudan. We will continue to press both sides of the conflict to undertake serious negotiations towards a lasting and just peace.

  Coral Reefs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government have taken since his oral statement in the Adjournment debate on 1 July 1998,Official Report, columns 324–30, to protect coral reefs. [65477]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since the Adjournment debate on 1 July, we have maintained our effort to conserve coral reefs, monitor their status and help to achieve their sustainable use.

  The Department for International Development (DFID) has further extended its support for the creation of a South Asia Regional Coral Reef Monitoring Network in Sri Lanka, Maldives and India, being a contribution to the global network sponsored by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). The programme has trained national managers to monitor the biophysical status of reef resources and the use of these resources by dependent coastal communities. DFID has also supported their participation in regional and international planning processes. An independent review in September 1998 concluded that the DFID/IOC programme has laid a very solid foundation for future development of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.

  A UK/Caribbean Regional Workshop in Jamaica during October 1998, funded by FCO and DFID, attracted representatives from 22 Caribbean States to consider the conservation status of marine biodiversity in the Caribbean including threats to the coral reefs of the region. The results of this Caribbean meeting were reported to the Second London Oceans Workshop sponsored by Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), attended by delegations from 40 countries, at which the keynote address by the Deputy Prime Minister focused on

  23
  the central role of coral reefs as indicators of the health of the oceans, and on the need to take action to protect both reefs and other sensitive marine ecosystems.

  During December 1998, DFID approved funding of £0.6 million to extend for a further three year period the programme implemented by the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) studying the social, economic and environmental benefits which have arisen from the protection of coral reefs in Jamaica and in British Virgin Islands.

  DFID has also approved new support for the Coastal Resources Management Project providing advice to the Government of Turks and Caicos Islands for the protection and management of a marine protected area including some spectacular coral reefs, and the development of local capacity and infrastructure to ensure that this is a long sustained process.

  The UK's ratification of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance has been extended to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and this came into force on 8 January 1999. BIOT is now preparing to put forward for listing as a Ramsar site an area of the Chagos Archipelago which includes a number of globally outstanding coral reefs.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries with which she is having discussions regarding use of child labour. [66651]

  Clare Short
  Our work on child labour currently involves the following countries:

  India

  Pakistan

  Bangladesh

  Nepal

  Thailand

  Cambodia

  Laos

  Vietnam

  China

  Kenya

  South Africa

  Tanzania

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  In addition, we are supporting the UK-based Ethical Trading Initiative, which aims to investigate ways of dealing with labour issues in supermarket and other supply chains. We have also contributed $1 million to the International Labour Organisation's International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour which has over 50 participating countries. In July last year, with the aim of engaging workers organisations, we staged a child labour workshop at which unions and NGOs from the south and the north could exchange ideas.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prisoners of War (Japan)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 7 December regarding former prisoners of war of the Japanese. [66583]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: I replied to my hon. Friend on 22 January.

  Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what invitations have been extended to political parties other than the Liberal Democrats to develop policy jointly with the Government using the JCCC mechanism. [66879]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: None.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the membership of the JCCC. [67688]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1123–35.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the report from the Monterey Institute of International Studies in relation to the reported opposition by the US Attorney-General to the bombing of the Al Shifa plant in Sudan. [67644]

  The Prime Minister
  As I said at the time of the strike against Al Shifa, the United States said that they had compelling evidence that the chemical plant was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons materials.

  It is not for me to comment on what this study claims to be the reported opinions of the US Attorney-General.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 342, what proposals have been made by the Russians to find a way forward in respect of Iraq. [67348]

  The Prime Minister
  The Russians have circulated a paper informally among Security Council members, proposing a number of ideas on how the Council might wish to proceed in dealing with Iraq's continued failure to meet its obligations under Security Council resolutions, particularly on its weapons of mass destruction programmes. The Russians have not yet made these ideas public. These and French proposals tabled earlier will be discussed further in the Security Council in the near future.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper on the constitutional implications for Great Britain of joining the economic and monetary union. [67277]
  25
  The Prime Minister
  In his statement to the House of Commons on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 583–88, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out clearly the Government's view of the constitutional implications of joining the single currency.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Overseas Companies (Funding)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Government funding has been given to overseas companies in the last 10 years for the establishment of factories in the United Kingdom that have closed in the first three years of operation or never opened. [66026]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Comprehensive information on total Government funding given to foreign owned companies and the number of associated factory closures is not held centrally. To provide such information would involve disproportionate cost.

  However, for Regional Selective Assistance (RSA), the DTI's main investment grant scheme, available data show that, in the last 10 years, over 300 foreign owned companies accepted offers of RSA for new start-up projects in GB. Grant payments to these companies amounted to £227 million. Within three years of accepting offers, two of these companies were subject to legal process and a further six companies were invoiced for full recovery of grant paid because the RSA projects were abandoned. A total of £1.5 million grant was involved of which £150k has been recovered to date. The recoveries do not include possible action to recover grant paid in the case of Siemens.

  Departmental Assistance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial assistance the Government have provided to small businesses to assist them in preparing for(a) the euro and (b) the millennium bug. [66024]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Government funded a major campaign to raise awareness among small and medium enterprises (SMEs) of the implications of the euro and encourage them to send for the Treasury's euro preparation factsheets. This campaign is also supported by a website and practical support for 12 regional euro forums, Business Links and other sources of advice for SMEs. No direct financial assistance to help firms prepare for the euro has, however, been made available.

  My Department set up Action 2000 which has a budget of £19.3 million to lead the work on behalf of Government in ensuring that small businesses are aware of, and obtain help in, dealing with the millennium bug. Action 2000 is working regionally with Business Links and other business support organisations to deliver practical advice and guidance to SMEs, signposting local
  26
  services and consultants. Since last June, there have been some 170,000 requests for the Action Pack published by Action 2000 and 150,000 calls to its Action Line.

  The Government have made £26 million available to help small and medium enterprises train their staff to tackle the date change problem. Employers with 250 employees or fewer are eligible for 100 per cent. grants for sending existing staff or new recruits on short courses in skills related to dealing with the millennium bug. Courses are provided by the training organisations who have been accredited for the programme by the IT National Training Organisation.

  White Goods
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to ensure competition and choice for consumers purchasing electrical appliances; [66572]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the findings of his Department' s survey on the prices of washing machines in retail outlets; [66571]

  (3) what further steps he is taking to introduce competition in the market for white goods. [66570]

  Dr. Howells
  Under UK competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for keeping the operation of markets under review and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour, abuse of monopoly power or restrictive trade practices.

  As part of his responsibilities, the Director General is keeping under review compliance with the Order made by my right hon. Friend the former President of the Board of Trade on 19 May 1998, following the 1997 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of eight categories of domestic electrical goods (including washing machines). The Order prohibits suppliers of those goods from recommending retail prices to retailers, and from influencing the prices at which retailers sell their goods, and came into force on 1 September 1998.

  The Government are keen to ensure that UK consumers are not disadvantaged by anti-competitive practices. The new Competition Act 1998 therefore gives the Director General tougher powers to investigate anti-competitive practices. For the first time, it gives him powers to seize company records, take quick action to halt commercial practices which are anti-competitive and fine companies whose behaviour is found to be anti-competitive.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with consumer groups about price competition in the white goods sector. [66576]

  Dr. Howells
  I meet with consumer groups regularly to discuss a wide range of issues, and will continue to do so.

  Embedded Generators
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what was the total installed capacity of embedded generators for each of the last five years for which data are available; [66915]

  (2) how many units of electricity were supplied to the distribution system by embedded generators in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [66899]

  Mr. Battle
  No central records are kept of the precise amount of generating capacity embedded within the distribution networks of electricity companies in the United Kingdom, nor of the output from such capacity.

  However, the capacity of generating plant other than that owned by major power producers over the latest five years for which data are available was as follows:

  GW

  end December 1993

  3.6

  end December 1994

  3.8

  end December 1995

  3.9

  end December 1996

  4.2

  end December 1997

  4.2

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1998; Table 6.5.

  The figures may over-estimate the amount of embedded capacity since some generating plants may not be capable of exporting electricity to the local network or local conditions may be such that there are limits on the capacity that can be exported. However, the figures may also understate the amount of embedded capacity to the extent that some of the plant belonging to major power producers is embedded.

  In each of the last five years, the following quantities of electricity were supplied to the public distribution system in the United Kingdom by generators other than major power producers:

  TWh

  1993

  3.2

  1994

  3.9

  1995

  3.2

  1996

  3.2

  1997

  3.4

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1998; Table 6.3.

  These figures do not include electricity generated by embedded stations but consumed on the site where generated. Neither do they include generation from any embedded station owned by major power producers.

  Note:
  Major power producers are those companies whose prime purpose is the generation of electricity. The public distribution system comprises the transmission and distribution grids in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

  Anglo-Yemeni Trade Relations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Anglo-Yemeni trade relations. [66691]
  28
  Mr. Wilson
  UK-Yemeni trade relations remain stable. The official figures for 1997 are as shown, together with the latest available figures for January to November 1998:

  UK trade in goods with Yemen

  £ million

  1997

  January to November 1998

  UK Exports

  72.1

  70.0

  UK Imports

  5.1

  3.2

  UK Balance

  67.0

  66.8

  Source:

  HM Customs & Excise Business Monitor MM20 DTI/ES Statistics

  Bananas
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the changing trading relationships between the United States of America and(a) the European Union as a single entity and (b) individual EU member states with reference to the continuing sanctions relating to the trade dispute over bananas. [67116]

  Mr. Wilson
  The European Union acts as a single entity in external trade policy matters, under Article 113 of the EC Treaty. There are currently no sanctions in place against EU exports to the US, and intensive efforts to avoid such action is continuing.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by BNFL in developing the tank waste remediation system for vitrification of long-lived radioactive wastes at Hanford; and what plans it has to apply this technique to the immobilisation of high level radioactive wastes at BNFL' s Sellafield site. [67105]

  Mr. Battle
  While this is a commercial matter for BNFL, the company announced in July 1998 that they had been awarded the contract for the first phase in developing the tank waste remediation system at Hanford. Much of the technology and approach for this contract has been developed at BNFL' s Sellafield site.

  This phase involves BNFL in carrying out a 2 year study on the feasibility of designing and constructing a processing facility to immobilise USDOE-owned radioactive waste in glass form using vitrification technology.

  Wealth Warnings (Radio)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce the results of the consultation completed in May 1998 on the abolition of wealth warnings on commercial radio; and if he will make a statement. [66818]

  Dr. Howells
  I will make an announcement shortly.

  Defence and Security Equipment Exports
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list in respect of foreign(a) companies and (b) Governments which have been given guarantees in relation to defence and security equipment in the past three

  29
  years (i) the name of the country to which defence and security equipment has been sold, (ii) the level of debt guaranteed for sales to each country in each of the last three years and (iii) the amount of that debt which was paid out by the ECGD in each of the last three years. [66981]

  Mr. Wilson
  The following tables detail by country the amount of business which ECGD has guaranteed for sales to defence buyers in each of the last three years and the incidence of claims under these same guarantees.

  £ million

  Country

  Amount guaranteed

  Amount paid as claims under these Guarantees 1996–97 to 1998–99

  1996–97

  Bahrain

  1.4

  0

  Indonesia

  143.6

  11.7

  Republic of Korea

  13.6

  0

  Lithuania

  1.5

  0

  Qatar

  5.5

  0

  Saudi Arabia

  225

  0

  Singapore

  18.6

  0

  Turkey

  2.0

  0

  1997–98

  Egypt

  8.8

  0

  Greece

  18.7

  0

  Indonesia

  16.5

  0

  Italy

  2.7

  0

  Republic of Korea

  62.4

  0

  Kuwait

  55.7

  0

  Lithuania

  4.8

  0

  Oman

  908

  0

  Qatar

  222.9

  0

  Saudi Arabia

  225

  0

  Thailand

  27.3

  0

  Turkey

  35.6

  0

  United Arab Emirates

  9.8

  0

  USA

  58.3

  0

  1998–99 (to 20 January)

  Brazil

  29.3

  0

  Brunei

  580

  0

  India

  14.3

  0

  Indonesia

  5.8

  0

  Italy

  1.5

  0

  Oman

  21.1

  0

  Sweden

  4.1

  0

  USA

  6.9

  0

  1 Paid 1998–99

  Shoe Industry
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the state of the UK shoe manufacturing industry; [67014]

  (2) what proposals he has for a national strategy for the UK shoe manufacturing industry. [67016]

  Mr. Battle
  The DTI prepared a Competitive Analysis of the Footwear Industry which was issued in December 1996. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  I launched an Action Plan to improve the competitiveness of the UK footwear industry at the National Footwear Conference in Rossendale in February 1998. The Plan is being taken forward by the Footwear Liaison Action Group (FLAG). This is an
  30
  industry led Group which has representatives from companies, trade associations, unions, training organisations, Business Links, DTI and DFEE.

  Rover-BMW Cars
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the expected future production by Rover-BMW cars. [67053]

  Mr. Battle
  Rover Group produce a range of vehicles in the UK from the Mini to the Land Rover series. Last year, Rover launched the new R75 which will be produced at Cowley and go on sale this year as a replacement for the 600–800 models. And in November, Bernd Pischestreider, Chairman of BMW, announced that the new Mini will be produced at Longbridge from 2000.

  Longbridge currently produces the Rover 200 and 400 models, which are due to be replaced early in the new millennium. BMW has yet to make a decision as to where the new model will be produced.

  The Government naturally remain in close contact with both Rover and BMW on many issues including the location of production of future models.

  EU Research Council
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Research Council held on 22 December 1998. [67650]

  Mr. Byers
  Lord Sainsbury represented the UK at the meeting of the EU Research Council on 22 December 1998. I am pleased to say that the Council reached final agreement on the legislation for the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP5), paving the way for the launch of the programme in the next few weeks. Agreement on FP5 marks a major step forward in Europe's research effort, opening up new opportunities for collaborative research tackling major European challenges relating to competitiveness and the quality of life. I look forward to continued strong participation by UK researchers.

  The Council adopted Decisions on the two Framework Programmes that, under the EC Treaty and the Euratom Treaty, set the budget and broad priorities for FP5, and on the rules for detailed participation in the programme stemming from Article 130j of the EC Treaty. It reached political agreement on FP5's ten specific programmes, which set out scientific and technological content in detail and provide for the internal distribution of each programme's budget, in preparation for formal adoption later this month.

  The Council also agreed conclusions calling for greater emphasis on research, development and innovation activities in the EU's MEDA programme for development co-operation with Mediterranean countries. It approved signature of an agreement for scientific and technological co-operation between the European Community and

  31
  China and made decisions progressing a number of other scientific and technological co-operation agreements between the Community third countries.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made towards developing a strategy for future support for the textile industry; and if he will make a statement. [67734]

  Mr. Battle
  Last year, a joint industry-union group produced an Action Plan for the Textiles and Clothing Industry. I subsequently met the authors of this Document and offered the services of DTI officials to facilitate the production, by an industry-led Group, of a more detailed strategy for the industry. The industry and the unions decided to take the initiative forward and have formed the Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group. My Department will provide the Group's secretariat. To ensure that the Group is wholly representative of the industry and its supply chain, the Group is to include representatives from trade associations, unions, the retail sector, manufacturing, academia and Government. The first meeting of the Group will be on 1 February and preparatory work has already begun.

  Local transport capital settlements1

  £ million

  Allocation category

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Principal road carriageway maintenance

  0

  95

  173

  151

  141

  86

  90

  80

  113

  Bridge assessment and strengthening

  91

  111

  137

  137

  117

  101

  110

  100

  128

  Local safety schemes

  0

  0

  0

  50

  50

  55

  60

  50

  60

  Local authority packages

  0

  0

  0

  10

  64

  79

  79

  85

  135

  Minor works

  75

  89

  115

  60

  64

  40

  0

  0

  25

  Grant reduction for previous underspends

  -48

  -54

  -64

  -67

  -67

  -40

  -16

  -7

  -4

  Existing commitments2

  561

  522

  529

  431

  485

  463

  407

  308

  173

  New major schemes

  41

  61

  93

  47

  39

  6

  0

  0

  6

  Total

  768

  877

  1,047

  886

  960

  830

  746

  623

  641

  1 Total for 1990–2000 excludes support for European Regional Development Fund grant (£26 million in 1998–99), which is now funded separately from the local transport capital settlement.

  2 Support for Croydon Tramlink and South Yorkshire Supertram.

  Rainham Marsh
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information(a) his Department and (b) English Partnerships holds relating to contamination of land at Rainham Marsh in Havering; and if he will place such information in the Library. [65901]

  Mr. Meale
  When English Partnerships was formed in 1993 it also inherited, acting as Agent for the Secretary of State, a commitment to pay Derelict Land Grant to the London Borough of Havering, for the preparation of site investigation reports. A contamination report and consequently a remediation report, both funded by Derelict Land Grant, via English Partnerships, have been produced. Copies of the reports are available upon request from the London Borough of Havering, who own the Havering Riverside site (known as Rainham Marsh) and commissioned production of the reports.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will publish a table showing total local authority capital expenditure allocations for transport for the year 1999–2000; and for each of the previous eight years; [65242]

  (2) if he will publish a table indicating local authority transport capital expenditure allocations for 1999–2000 for existing commitments and new major schemes; and the equivalent figures for each of the previous eight years. [65243]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: As part of our commitment to integrated transport policies as set out in "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", in the 1999–2000 local transport capital settlement we increased support to local transport packages, local safety schemes and the maintenance of highways and bridges. We also reintroduced funding for rural and non-package minor works, which had been suspended for the two previous settlements. The information is shown in the following table.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ban the import of all forms of asbestos; if he will list those members of the EU which have introduced such a ban; and if he will make a statement. [66058]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are firmly committed both to a national and to a Europe-wide solution to the problem of asbestos, based on sound science. It is increasingly likely that the European Commission's draft proposals for further restrictions on asbestos marketing and use within the EU will be voted on by Member States in March 1999. At around the same time, I expect to receive the Health and Safety Commission's recommendation following its recent consultation exercise on a British ban.

  I understand that Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden have asbestos bans in place.

  Local Government Modernisation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will require town and parish councils to take as part of his plans for the modernisation of local government. [65772]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As our White Paper "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People" makes clear, it is important that parish councils embrace the culture of openness and accountability, putting their local people first. Our modernisation agenda therefore provides for such councils to continue to play their local democratic role and to be subject—as appropriate to their size and functions—to the disciplines of the new ethical framework and the duty of best value.

  London Underground (Funding)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how London Underground will be funded when the central Government grant is phased out in 2000. [66094]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are keeping funding for London Underground under review with London Transport, and will take decisions in the light of progress to implement the public private partnership and LT's overall financial position.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what occasions Ministers in his Department have made journeys in non-scheduled or private aeroplanes since 1 May 1997; and at what cost to public funds. [66463]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: I refer to my answer of 19 November 1998, Official Report, columns 838–39, to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples).

  Water and Sewerage Companies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to take to ensure that information is made publicly available to enable a proper scrutiny of the environmental and public health performance of the water and sewerage companies; and if he will make a statement. [66555]

  Mr. Meale
  Details of companies' discharge consents and compliance monitoring data for both consents and quality standards set for bodies of water, including bathing water quality results, are made publicly available on the Environment Agency's statutory pollution control registers, as are details of authorisations of processes subject to integrated pollution control (IPC). The Agency also compiles an inventory of emissions from processes subject to IPC, which it proposes to extend to require reporting of emissions by other processes it regulates, such as sewage treatment works.

  As regards drinking water, water companies are required to compile annual records, including details of tests of water quality which they have conducted, in respect of each of their water supply zones. This information is available for public inspection. In addition,
  34
  the Chief Inspector of the Drinking Water Inspectorate produces an annual report of checks made by the Inspectorate on the quality of water supplied by water companies.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the length of critical sewers in(a) grade 1, (b) grade 2, (c) grade 3, (d) grade 4 and (e) grade 5 by water and sewerage company. [66557]

  Mr. Meale
  This information is not available in the form requested but Ofwat's annual reports on Financial Performance and Capital Investment, copies of which are in the Library of the House, list the total lengths of critical sewers renovated and replaced each year and in 1997–98 these renovations and replacements were at their highest level since 1991–92.

  Ofwat assesses the performance of underground assets by reference to trends in their serviceability to customers and they will publish more information about serviceability of assets later this year.

  National Walking Strategy
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the National Walking Strategy consultation document; and if he will make a statement. [66335]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Walking Steering Group completed a report late last year. The Government are grateful to the Group for the work that they put into producing this document. We are committed to encouraging walking as part of our policy of reducing dependency upon the private motor car and we will be publishing a Government strategy statement shortly.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the policy of his Department on the setting-up of elected safety representatives and safety committees within the construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [66649]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government place great importance on the role of safety representatives and the contribution which employees can play in securing health and safety both in the construction sector and more widely. I hope that wherever they are able to do so, trade unions will appoint safety representatives to work with employers to improve standards of health and safety in the workplace.

  Statutory arrangements for the appointment of safety representatives by recognised trade unions, and the establishment of safety committees where two or more safety representatives request this, are laid down in the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977. These regulations apply in construction as in other sectors onshore. Where there are groups of employees who are not covered by safety representatives appointed under the 1977 regulations, their employer has a duty, under the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, to consult them on matters related to their health and safety, either direct or through representatives elected by the employees for that purpose.
  35
  In addition, the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 require the principal contractor to ensure that employees and the self-employed are able to discuss and offer advice on matters which might affect their health and safety and to ensure that there are arrangements for the co-ordination of the views of employees or their representatives.

  We have asked the Health and Safety Commission to review arrangements for health and safety consultation and representation, and to consider ways to enhance the role of safety representatives.

  Petrus Oil Ltd.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cases the Environment Agency has taken to court concerning Petrus Oil Ltd.; and if he will list the outcome of each case. [66853]

  Mr. Meale
  The Environment Agency has brought prosecution cases against Petrus Oil Ltd. arising from four separate pollution incidents on 28 September 1996, 17 October 1996, 14 April 1997 and 1 July 1997.

  All the cases were consolidated into one indictment of 11 counts. Counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 have been stayed by the judge on the basis of abuse of process. Counts 2 and 4 lie on the file as not justifying the expense of a Crown Court trial in isolation. Counts 7–11 relating to the incidents on 14 April 1997 and 1 July 1997 remain to be decided and await the outcome of the Revocation Appeal Inquiry which commences on 2 March 1999 in Stoke-on-Trent.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the irrecoverable costs to the Environment Agency of its cases relating to Petrus Oil Ltd. indicating the amount of costs and date of court order for the Environment Agency to reimburse Petrus Oil Ltd. [66854]

  Mr. Meale
  The irrecoverable costs to the Environment Agency of its cases relating to Petrus Oil Ltd. are difficult to estimate but will be in the region of £150,000 including Counsel's fees, staff costs and consultancy fees. The order for costs to be paid by the Environment Agency was made on 18 December 1998 and was for £118,605.45.

  Used Oils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the disposal of used oils. [66851]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government's policy on waste disposal, including used oils, is being reviewed as part of the review of the waste strategy. The consultation paper, Less Waste More Value (DETR 1998) sets out the policy that decisions on the management of waste should be based on the Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) with the waste management hierarchy as a guide to making decisions under this principle. Under the hierarchy the most effective solution is, usually, not to produce the waste at all. Failing that, value should be recovered from waste. In Less Waste More Value the Government set out their view that incineration with energy recovery should not be undertaken without consideration first being given to the possibility of 36
  recycling. Waste should, therefore, only be disposed of once options for re-use and recovery have been considered.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many sites are licensed for the re-refining of used oils. [66852]

  Mr. Meale
  Within England and Wales five sites are authorised by the Environment Agency under Part I of the Environment Protection Act 1990 for re-refining of used oils.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if used oils are re-refined in EC and OECD countries. [66873]

  Mr. Meale
  Two main companies re-refine used oils in the United Kingdom. A study for the European Commission in 1996, showed that used oil is re-refined in other European Union countries including, Germany, Italy, France and Spain. We are also aware that re-refining takes place in other OECD countries, including New Zealand and the United States.

  Court Costs
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy concerning the timing of the payment of court costs. [66855]

  Mr. Meale
  Costs due to be paid under a court order by my Department or a body for which I am responsible should be paid promptly, subject to any available remedy by way of appeal or application to set aside the order.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Regional Development Agency for the North west will be established; and where its offices will be located. [66733]

  Mr. Meale
  We appointed the Board members for Regional Development Agencies in each of the regions outside London which were established 14 December 1998. The Agencies will become operational from 1 April 1999. The North West Development Agency is currently based in temporary accommodation in Warrington and is considering its future location requirements. These are likely to include Head Office and a number of sub-regional offices.

  Liverpool Lime Street-Freshfield Station Rail Line
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of track maintenance carried out by Railtrack on the line between Liverpool Lime Street and Freshfield Station in Merseyside. [66732]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Within the last three months the Health & Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate has inspected the adequacy of track maintenance carried out by Railtrack on the line between Liverpool and Southport (which includes Freshfield station). This action was taken as a direct result of
  37
  complaints from local residents concerned about noise and vibration resulting from the operation of the railway. HSE's inspection did not find that track maintenance standards presented a risk to the health and safety of passengers or railway employees. A factual statement to this effect was provided to the local authority.

  Local Government
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas

  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the numbers of local authorities that will adopt the cabinet-style model of local government; and if he will list them. [66729]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have not made any such estimate; councils will need to consult their local communities before deciding which model to adopt.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to make the decision process of local government more accessible to the public. [66730]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Bill, which received its Second Reading on 12 January, is the first step in delivering our wide-ranging agenda for bringing councils closer to the people which was set out in our White Paper "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People". Our proposals to transform the political management and ethical framework of councils will be published soon in a draft Bill and other measures will follow.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities have offered a referendum to the public following the White Paper on local government reform. [66731]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are aware that a number of councils have already signalled their intention to hold referendums on reforms to their political management structures.

  Beaches
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department is providing to ensure that beaches in the North West are improved to Blue Hag standard. [66929]

  Mr. Meale
  The Environment Agency and North West Water are working together closely and intensively to raise standards of bathing water quality in the north west. Last year we approved additional works to bring improvements to the Fylde Coast bathing waters. Options for further investment to achieve water quality required for Blue Flag status are being considered as part of the current review of water company price limits form 2000–05.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for which pesticides he has received unpublished scientific evidence 38
  that relates to the introduction of additional financial revenues which would lead to quantified changes in the volume of their use. [66867]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have been exploring the possibility of introducing a pesticide tax as a component of its minimisation policy. The consultants engaged on this work have relied on scientific information available in the published literature about the nature of active ingredients when considering various designs for a tax.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to permit(a) comparable and (b) better-performing technology to displace catalytic converters. [66712]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The introduction of catalytic converters on vehicles has been a major factor in reducing traffic pollution and contributing to improvements in air quality. The Government have a range of measures promoting cleaner vehicles, but these are not aimed either at favouring or displacing catalyst technology. Tighter exhaust emission standards to be introduced in 2000, with a further tightening in 2005 and beyond, will see an expansion of effective emission reduction technology on new petrol, diesel and gas powered vehicles. Catalysts are also a key factor in the development of future fuel cell technology. Only pure electric vehicles have no need for catalysts.

  Purchasers of low emission technology vehicles—both electric and catalysed—are eligible for financial support through the Energy Saving Trust's "Powershift" programme. We are also looking at electric, hybrid and fuel cell technologies through the DTI's Foresight Vehicle Programme.

  Allotments
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many allotment sites have been(a) approved for sale and (b) sold since 24 June 1998. [67026]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Secretary of State has given his consent for the sale of the following statutory allotment sites since 24 June 1998. The Department does not record whether sites are actually sold after consent for sale is given.

  Date

  Allotment site

  9 July

  Wharf Road, Woodston

  31 July

  Castleman Road, Chichester

  10 August

  Broadwater Gardens, Hillingdon

  17 August

  Efford Crescent, Plymouth

  17 August

  Green Street, Eastbourne

  2 October

  Woodhall, Chelmsford

  16 October

  Bartram Avenue, Braintree

  17 November

  Mimms Hall Road, Potters Bar

  30 November

  Hawcliffe Road, Mountsorrel

  9 December

  Hengrove Farm, Bristol

  16 December

  Wilton Road, Camberley

  5 January

  Yorktown Trading Estate, Surrey Heath

  Housing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new housing units were built and how many existing housing units were cleared in each local authority area in Tyne and Wear and Northumberland in the calendar years 1993 to 1998. [67299]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The statistics relate to the number of housing units completed by calendar years from 1993 to November 1998 (provisional) and all demolition figures for financial years from 1992–93 to 1996–97. (The demolitions data are collected on a financial years basis only.)

  Housebuilding completions

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  11998

  Tyne & Wear

  Gateshead

  492

  514

  330

  844

  363

  389

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  474

  520

  690

  1,210

  254

  341

  N. Tyneside

  732

  914

  1,019

  1,933

  727

  630

  S. Tyneside

  485

  323

  288

  611

  218

  140

  Sunderland

  560

  317

  551

  868

  490

  459

  Northumberland

  Alnwick

  96

  99

  45

  144

  107

  67

  Berwick upon Tweed

  74

  36

  65

  101

  83

  109

  Blyth Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Castle Morpeth

  72

  101

  94

  195

  170

  117

  Tynedale

  172

  92

  131

  223

  166

  137

  Wansbeck

  121

  202

  264

  466

  286

  127

  1Date up to the end of November 1998

  Demolitions

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Tyne & Wear

  Gateshead

  1

  0

  29

  0

  226

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  44

  54

  48

  N. Tyneside

  327

  0

  0

  0

  0

  S. Tyneside

  153

  82

  80

  24

  9

  Sunderland

  71

  0

  0

  0

  249

  Northumberland

  Alnwick

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Berwick upon Tweed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blyth Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Castle Morpeth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tynedale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wansbeck

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  National Bus Company
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made towards resolving the issue of the former National Bus Company pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [67102]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 167.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence he has assessed that biotechnology may cause permanent changes to the ecosystem. [66680]
  40
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: All applications for consent to release GM crops are assessed on a case by case basis. The applicants for consent are required to submit evidence regarding the potential impact on the environment. This evidence may be based on the applicants own trials and on studies carried out by independent workers.

  In deciding whether or not to grant consent, the Government are advised by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). A consent would only be granted if the evidence suggests that the GMOs are unlikely to result in harm to human health and the environment occurring.

  Further evidence is gathered through a Government funded research programme which investigates specific issues in order to underpin the risk assessment and decision making process.

  An ACRE sub-group will be set up shortly to consider the wider biodiversity implications of the introduction of GMOs, taking into account current practices and the Government's Biodiversity commitments, to halt and where possible reverse declines in farmland wildlife. Where such research indicates that GM crops have or could cause reductions in this wildlife, action will be taken to stop this.

  A number of research studies have indicated potential interference with ecological systems from GM crops, with varying degrees of permanance.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential of horizontal gene transfer biotechnology to produce new viruses and bacteria. [66684]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: Horizontal gene transfer technologies are the basis of modern biotechnology and allow the transfer of genes between unrelated species under contained laboratory conditions. Such work often involves the production genetically modified viruses and bacteria as vectors for gene transfer or research tools. All such work is subject to a risk assessment which considers the potential to unintentionally create new viruses and bacteria that may be pathogenic to man or harmful in the wider environment. If the risk assessment indicated there may be a danger then the work would either not be allowed or it would proceed under the highest containment levels. If a risk assessment turned out to be deficient or incorrect it could unwittingly lead to the production of new viruses or bacteria. However, experience of this technology over the last 25 years both in the UK and worldwide has demonstrated that such events are unlikely.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with beekeepers about and what assessment he has made of (i) the possible implications for the health of the bee population and (ii) the possible contamination of honey resulting from the cultivation of GM crops; and if he will make a statement. [67482]

  Mr. Meale
  My officials have responded to correspondence and telephone inquiries from beekeepers regarding these two issues. The possibility that crops genetically modified to resist attack from insect pests
  41
  might also cause harm to non-target beneficial insects is considered in the risk assessment of the approvals procedure. The risks of eating honey made by bees that have visited GM plants have been considered by MAFF. They were advised by the Advisory Committee for Novels Foods and Processes (ACNFP) that the risks were negligible. This is contained in the ACNFP Annual Report 1992, a copy of which is available in the library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the result of the research project by IACR Rothamsted on the impact on non-target insects of insect-resistant GM crops. [67486]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department's research contract with IACR Rothamsted to investigate the environmental impact of insect resistance in genetically modified plants with insect resistance genes is due to finish on 31 December this year. The report of the outcome of these studies will be published by the Department early in 2000.

  East Midlands Development Agency
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire concerning the lack of representatives of their counties on the East Midlands Development Agency Board. [67265]

  Mr. Meale
  Representations have been received from Northamptonshire County Council, Lincolnshire County Council, Wellingborough Borough Council, and West Lindsey District Council; from my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) and for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell); and the MEPs from Northampton and Blaby and Lincolnshire and Humberside, South. Representations have also been received from the Northampton Chamber of Commerce, Lincolnshire Industrial Mission and Nene University College Northampton; and a member of the public.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people of Asian origin he has appointed to the Board of the East Midlands Development Agency. [67264]

  Mr. Meale
  No candidates of Asian origin have been appointed to the Board of the East Midlands Development Agency. People from ethnic minorities make up to 5% of the board membership nationally.

  Bridge Strengthening Directive
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bridges are(a) closed and (b) weight-limited pending full implementation of bridge strengthening works required under EU Directive 85/3/EEC. [67559]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Bridge closures and weight-limits are decided by the highway authority in each case following risk assessment procedures published by the Highways Agency last year. We have no central record of the numbers of temporary closures and weight limits imposed by local highway authorities pending strengthening of structures.
  42
  However, the Directive does allow authorities to place permanent weight restrictions on structures where strengthening is not regarded as necessary on the basis of strategic importance for HGVs. The Transport Policies and Programmes submitted in July 1998 suggest that some 1,000 permanent weight restrictions have been placed as a result of the bridge assessment programme. These are largely on minor roads.

  Pending completion of the strengthening programme for Highways Agency bridges, 2 bridges carrying trunk roads or important routes over trunk roads have been temporarily closed and 6 are weight limited.

  Sewage Works (Isle of Wight)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the timing of the introduction of secondary sewage treatment at the new sewage works under construction at Yaverland, Sandown, Isle of Wight. [67563]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 47.

  Public Water Supplies
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what ways he expects the Environment Agency and the Director General of Water Services to ensure that water companies have satisfactory plans for maintaining public water supplies. [67651]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department together with the Welsh Office, has today published Maintaining Public Water Supplies—Ministerial guidance to the Director General of Water Services and to the Environment Agency on issues arising in the preparation of Water Resources Plans by the water companies of England and Wales. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the health and associated risks from the placement of telecommunications masts in residential areas; and what plans he has to review his assessment. [67627]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Guidance on limiting exposure to electro-magnetic radiation is issued by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which has a statutory function to provide advice to Government on all radiation matters. The Board continuously reviews and assesses the published scientific studies covering the fields of biology and medicine, epidemiology and dosimetry, and has concluded that there is no convincing evidence that exposure to emissions from telecommunications transmitters below the recommended guideline levels causes any adverse effects on people's health. In respect of telecommunications base stations, the NRPB further advises that experience with typical personal telecommunications installations has shown that the specified maximum exposure power densities are only likely to be exceeded within a few metres and directly in front of the antenna. However, the strength of radio waves at ground level and in regions accessible to the public tend to be many times below guideline levels and should present
  43
  no health risk. My Department has issued for consultation the draft of a joint circular on land use planning and electro-magnetic fields (EMFs). The circular provides advice to local planning authorities in deciding applications for development giving rise to EMFs, such as telecommunications base stations. A copy of the consultation package has been placed in the Library. The closing date for responses is 19 February.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the means by which people are informed of proposed masts for telecommunications; and if he will make a statement. [67648]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is important that the public has an opportunity to comment on the proposed installation of telecommunications masts. Where it is proposed to erect a mast subject to a planning application, the statutory requirement for a local authority to publicise any planning application will apply. In respect of mast development carried out under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO), we last year consulted on a number of proposed changes to that Order, including one designed to improve opportunities for informing the public. Following consideration of the responses to our proposals, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning announced in November our intention to introduce a new 42 day prior approval procedure in respect of ground-based masts which it is proposed to erect under the GPDO in place of the current 28 day procedure. This will include a new requirement that the developer should erect a site notice to publicise the development proposed. Local planning authorities will also be advised of the importance of giving additional publicity to the proposal. In this way people will have a better opportunity to comment on the siting and appearance of all proposals to erect ground-based masts under the GPDO.

  "Urban Renaissance"
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that copies of his document, "Urban Renaissance", are placed in the Vote Office and that in future all such documents are placed there upon publication. [67254]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Urban Task Force published their halfway report "Urban Renaissance" on 13 January. The report is largely a summary of the responses received to the consultation on the Urban Task Force's prospectus.

  Copies of the document were placed in the House Library on the day of publication and some copies were made available to the Vote Office. I apologise that sufficient copies were not available to meet demand. Further copies are being provided.

  The Urban Task Force's recommendations will be set out in their report to the Deputy Prime Minister in the early summer. Copies of this report will be placed in the House Library and the Vote Office.

  Council of Ministers Meetings
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which EU Council of Ministers meetings Ministers in his 44
  Department plan to attend during the German presidency; and if he will make a statement about each of the matters that will be discussed. [67619]

  Mr. Meale
  A DETR Minister normally attends meetings of the Environment Council and the Transport Council, and, depending on the business, may attend the Labour and Social Affairs Council. The scheduled dates for these Councils during the German presidency from January to June 1999 are:

  Environment Council

  11–12 March, 24–25 June

  Transport Council

  29 March, 17–18 June

  Labour and Social Affairs

  9 March, 25 May, 22 June (poss.).

  The agendas for these meetings have not yet been settled.

  Warsaw System
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish a current list of parties to the instruments of the Warsaw system for carriage by air. [67617]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This Department has no plans to publish such a list. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which monitors the status of the various instruments, provides this information. The list was last published in the July/August 1998 edition of the ICAO Journal.

  Future Transport System
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 2.3 of the White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", what indicators he proposes to publish in order to measure progress towards a transport system(a) which supports more jobs and a strong economy, (b) which helps increase prosperity and tackles social exclusion, (c) which does not damage health and (e) is sustainable. [67616]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Last year we published our first "Transport Trends" report containing key indicators relevant to many of the objectives set out in the White Paper. We will continue to publish these reports each year so that progress against key indicators can be monitored. The indicators will be developed to include breakdowns by income groups, rural and urban areas and by age and gender so that we can monitor the impact of policies in tackling social exclusion. We will carry out the further work needed to ensure that the range of published indicators is appropriate, seeking advice from the independent Commission for Integrated Transport which is being set up to monitor and advise on progress towards our objectives.

  Road Noise
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 2.70 of the White Paper, " A New Deal for Transport", what indicators he proposes to publish to measure the impact of road noise(a) in urban areas, (b) in suburban areas and (c) in rural areas. [67613]
  45
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As stated in paragraph 2.70 of the White Paper, noise is one of the areas where further work is needed to ensure that indicators are appropriate and effective. This work is being taken forward in conjunction with current work on noise indicators by the European Commission which aims to harmonise methods of calculating noise exposure as part of a proposed Framework Directive on Noise. It would be premature for us to reach conclusions about noise indicators until that work is further advanced.

  West Sussex County Council (Road Safety)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will allocate specific funds to West Sussex County Council to improve road safety around schools in Mid Sussex. [67274]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have already allocated over a million pounds of resources to West Sussex County Council which they could choose to use on capital works to improve road safety around schools in Mid Sussex. It is for the County Council to decide where this funding can be used most effectively to save lives and prevent casualties.

  In the Local Transport Capital Expenditure Settlement for 1999–00 we have allocated £526,000 to the County Council for expenditure on Local Safety Schemes, and £400,000 for expenditure on rural and non-package minor works. In addition, we have allocated £100,000 for expenditure on the East Grinstead transport package, which includes a safer routes to schools initiative.

  Further local transport capital funds for use in 2000–01 will be provided to all English highway authorities later this year following assessment of their local transport plans.

  Welsh Highland Railway
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reasons underlie the delay in announcing a decision on the inquiry into the application by the Ffestiniog Railway Company to reopen the Welsh Highland Railway between Dinas and Porthmadog; and if he will make a statement. [67136]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Inspector's report following the public inquiry is being considered by the Secretary of State. A decision will be made as soon as possible. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further whilst the matter is before the Secretary of State.

  Thaumasite
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the findings of the expert group looking into thaumasite. [67914]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am today publishing the Report of the Expert Group which has under the chairmanship of Professor Leslie Clark, President of the Institution of Structural Engineers, been studying the thaumasite form of sulfate attack on concrete.

  I announced the appointment of Professor Clark to chair an expert group on 1 April 1998, Official Report, columns 532–33, following the discovery by the
  46
  Highways Agency during bridge strengthening operations on the M5 in Gloucestershire of unexpected deterioration in some of the concrete columns below ground level. This was identified by the Building Research Establishment as the thaumasite form of sulfate attack.

  I asked the Expert Group to consider the available research and other evidence on thausmasite and to report giving advice and guidance on the implications for existing buildings and structures and on the specification and design of new construction. The Group was also asked to recommend any longer term programme of investigations and research which it considered necessary.

  The Expert Group reported to me at the beginning of December and I have since discussed the conclusions and recommendations with Professor Clark. I am very grateful to him and all his colleagues on the Expert Group for producing such a thorough and well-considered Report in a technically complex area in such a short period of time. It provides a great deal of re-assurance about the extent of the problem.

  The main findings of the Group are that:
  the thaumasite form of sulfate attack will only occur in buried Portland cement based concretes when all the primary risk factors are present simultaneously and developed to a significant degree. These primary risk factors are:

  the presence of sulfates and/or sulphides in the ground;

  the presence of mobile groundwater;

  the presence of carbonate, generally in the concrete aggregates; and

  low temperatures

  the probability of all these factors being present simultaneously is low for most existing buildings and structures and the number potentially at risk of the occurrence in the UK is considered small;
  the structural consequences of thausmasite attack are rarely of serious concern in respect of public safety, as most buildings would exhibit warning signs of distress well before there was any danger of collapse;
  it is not necessary to specifically inspect domestic properties for occurrence of thaumasite attack in foundations or above ground. Data from the National House Building Council indicate that the incidence of sulfate attack in domestic properties is very small in relation to other building defects. Thaumasite can be addressed as part of general repair and maintenance of houses.

  The Report recommends a range of options open to specifiers and designers to minimise the risk of occurrence of the thaumasite form of sulfate attack in new construction.

  Although the Group's findings are re-assuring, the Report stresses the need for the construction industry not to be complacent. It recommends that the industry, with appropriate support from Government, instigates a structured programme of research aimed at understanding the outstanding issues.

  My Department is already taking steps to put in hand a programme of research in collaboration with the industry to take forward the Report's specific recommendations.

  The BRE will be amending Digest 363, which gives advice to designers, to reflect the Report's recommendations. We have also asked the BRE to continue to monitor occurrences of thaumasite and the conditions under which these take place.
  47
  The Highways Agency is currently reviewing its interim guidance on thaumasite and will be issuing updated guidance shortly. It is completing its programme of investigations and repairs in Gloucestershire and Avon and is undertaking a phased limited programme of continued investigations in association with its planned bridge inspection programme.

  I have also asked Professor Clark to review the Report's conclusions in a year's time with help from the experts at BRE and, in the light of the findings of further research and monitoring now being commissioned, to consider whether there may be a need to reconvene the Group.

  Sky Glow
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reduce sky glow from street lighting in rural areas. [67612]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 12 November 1998,Official Report, column 276.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Theological Training (Ordinands)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the funding of theological training for ordinands. [65650]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  There are 1,381 Anglican ordinands in training, whose costs are met primarily by money raised each year from the dioceses. The dioceses also provide financial support for the dependents of married ordinands in full-time training. Some support is also provided by the Church Times Train-a-Priest Fund, and other charities and trusts.

  None of the training institutions receive direct support from public funds, although a small minority of ordinands attract LEA mandatory awards.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to paragraph 20, on page 4 of "Partnership in Pensions", Cm 4179, what proportion of people currently work throughout their working life. [65578]

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

  The available information drawn from an analysis of National Insurance records shows that nearly 20 per cent. of the 800,000 people aged 54, who had computer records on the system in 1995–96, were employees throughout their working lives. This is based on a working life to 1995–96 of 34 years and men and women have been treated equally. (To qualify for the full rate of basic State
  48
  pension a person has to pay or have credited National Insurance contributions for nine-tenths of their working life).

  The Government's new State Second Pension will boost the second pension entitlement of those on low income, carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records. The combination of basic State pension and a second pension will cut the number of people who need to rely on income-related benefits in retirement.

  Notes:

  1. A cohort of 54 year old people was chosen as this is the only age group for which a full 1 per cent. sample is available at present.

  2. Before 1975 a full working year has been taken as one in which a person paid Class I contributions for 50 weeks in that year; and, after 1975, contributions on earnings equivalent to 50 times the lower earnings limit. Periods of employment outside Class 1 employment have not been included. For example, self-employment and, prior to the raising of school leaving age in 1972, periods in employment under the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the incremental value to(a) the basic state pension and (b) the state second pension, of a year spent caring for a disabled person under his proposed pension reforms. [65577]

  Mr. Timms
  The incremental value of a year of caring will depend upon a number of factors, including the year in which care is given, the total number of years spent caring and the total number of years worked.

  An individual who has a single year of caring upon introduction of the State Second Pension, who has 43 other qualifying years before retirement and no further years of caring, would receive £0.80 per week Basic State Pension and £0.90 per week State Second Pension more than if they had no years of caring.

  Notes:

  Figures are given in constant 1998 earnings terms.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £0.10.

  Family Credit
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the target time scales for family credit appeals to be decided. [66823]

  Angela Eagle
  The Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) is responsible for the administration of Social Security Appeals. ITS is independent of the Department of Social Security and is not, therefore, subject to targets set by the Secretary of State.

  However, his Honour Judge Harris, the ITS President, has an objective to clear all Social Security Appeals in 26 weeks from the date of lodgement to the date of hearing.

  The Government are committed to speeding up the arrangements for handling appeals. The Social Security Act 1998 introduced measures to modernise and streamline the appeals process. One of the changes will be the launch of The Appeals Service, an executive agency responsible to the Secretary of State which will administer Social Security Appeals. Once The Appeals Service Agency has been launched, the Secretary of State will set demanding targets and will publish and report on the results.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his estimates, based on the Family Resources Survey 1996–97 of non-take-ups of income support by persons in each age, sex and marital status group, consistent with his answer of 19 October 1998,Official Report, columns 957–58. [66876]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available. Following the discovery of the error in the published take-up statistics, work continues towards the publication of revised statistics relating to 1996–97. Publication is likely in the Spring.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of current CSA clients are in shared care arrangements above two nights per week or equivalent. [67140]

  Angela Eagle
  As at 31 August 1998, the latest date for which figures are available, around 5 per cent. of non-resident parents with a full maintenance assessment shared the care of one or more qualifying children for the equivalent of two nights a week and 2 per cent. shared care for longer periods.

  Source:

  CSA Quarterly Summary of Statistics August 1998.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to allow recipents of severe disablement allowance the right to have a home interview to satisfy the requirement to attend an interview for the Single Gateway to Work. [67367]

  Angela Eagle
  Home visits will be arranged in any cases where circumstances make it impractical for the claimant to attend the office.

  Personal Adviser Interviews
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow a claimant the right(a) to object to attending a personal adviser interview under the Single Gateway to Work and (b) to appeal against a decision requiring him to attend such an interview. [67394]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the Single Work-focused Gateway pilots, payment of benefit to people of working age will be conditional upon attendance at an interview with a personal adviser. Claimants who are refused benefit or who are paid at a reduced rate as a result of their failure to take part in a personal interview without good reason will be able to take their case to an independent appeal tribunal.

  Child Benefit
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in Doncaster Central, will receive the increase in child benefit, effective from April 1999. [66564]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Child Benefit is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  50
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Rosie Winterton, dated 21 January 1999:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many families in Doncaster Central will benefit from the increase in child benefit, effective from April 1999.
  Unfortunately the information is not readily available to identify families, by region, who are receiving Child Benefit. These figures could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I can however explain the new rates of Child Benefit from April 1999. They will be £14.40 for the eldest child and £9.60 for each subsequent child. The increase for the eldest child includes the extra £2.50 a week announced in the March Budget, plus uprating. This is an overall increase of £3.25 for a family with two children.
  I am sorry on this occasion I could not be of more help but I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance targets have been set for the disability living allowance administration, Norcross, Blackpool, in respect of the length of time to reply to inquiries by hon. Members. [66673]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 21 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what performance targets have been set for the Disability Living Allowance administration, Norcross, Blackpool, in respect of the length of time to reply to enquiries by honourable Members.
  The target is to reply within 10 working days.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges' Interests
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce a register of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests for judges. [66951]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans for the introduction of a general register of either pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests for judges. However, in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 325, I referred to the steps already taken by the Lord Chancellor to ensure the proper disclosure of interests in any individual case by Members of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity.

  Notaries
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for abolishing the monopoly of notaries in London by the Worshipful Company of Scriveners; and if he will make a statement. [66977]
  51
  Mr. Hoon
  The Department has obtained the views of interested parties on this issue. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is currently considering whether the monopoly should be abolished. He hopes to be able to announce his conclusion shortly.

  Local Deprivation Indicators
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department which measures of local deprivation his Department and its agencies use in considering allocation of funds to local projects. [66721]

  Mr. Hoon
  Thirteen Regional Legal Services Committees (RLSCs) have been established to advise the Legal Aid Board on the nature and extent of need for legal services throughout England and Wales and how need should be prioritised. Each RLSC is developing a Regional Strategy which identifies local need for legal services and makes recommendations for supply in relation to that need. The assessment of need is based on census data, the Index of Local Deprivation, the number of Income Support claimants, Housing Benefit claimants and Disability Living Allowance claimants.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce post-appointment appraisals for Queen's Counsel. [66949]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to introduce post-appointment appraisals for Queen's Counsel.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) High Court judges and (b) Circuit judges appointed in each of the last five years had previously been Queen's Counsel. [66950]

  Mr. Hoon
  Of those judges appointed in the last five years, 37 High Court Judges and 30 Circuit Judges had previously been Queen's Counsel. The breakdown is as follows:

  High Court

  Circuit Bench

  1994

  6

  3

  1995

  12

  3

  1996

  7

  7

  1997

  6

  10

  1998

  6

  7

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department for each of the last five years, what was(a) the highest figure and (b) the average figure given as the gross fee income by applicants to be made Queen's Counsel who were (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful. [66957]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of the consultation procedure for the appointment of Queen's Counsel for each of the last five years; and what the total 52
  cost was of the staff employed in work related to the appointment of Queen's Counsel for each of the last five years. [66972]

  Mr. Hoon
  I list the departmental expenditure, excluding overheads, apportionable for considering applications for Queen's Counsel in each of the previous five financial years. I also list the costs incurred, excluding overheads, in relation to the appointment of Queen's Counsel for each of the previous five financial years. These are recovered by means of a fee charged for the grant of Queen's Counsel.

  £

  Year

  Departmental costs

  Appointment costs

  1993–94

  62,575

  10,780

  1994–95

  69,824

  9,940

  1995–96

  82,130

  9,900

  1996–97

  80,168

  10,200

  1997–98

  65,264

  9,000

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will state, for each of the last five years(a) the average number and (b) the highest number of unsuccessful previous applications made by applicants to be made Queen's Counsel. [66971]

  Mr. Hoon
  The average of unsuccessful previous applications made by applicants for Queen's Counsel in 1998 was 2.5. The highest number of unsuccessful previous applications by an applicant for Queen's Counsel in 1998 was 25. In respect of earlier years the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make the system of appointment of Queen's Counsel more transparent. [66975]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently made the system more transparent. This year he is consulting more of the legal community than before about the suitability of candidates. Applications for silk are invited in a notice published in the national press. The policies, procedures and criteria that he applies to these appointments are published each year in a guide for applicants. The Guide for Applicants can be found on the Lord Chancellor's Department's website. The Lord Chancellor continually reviews the system with a view to making it even more transparent.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what plans he has to recover(a) the cost of the Queen's Counsel consultation procedure and (b) the related departmental staff costs from applicants; [66973]

  (2) what plans he has (a) to introduce an application fee for appointment to Queen's Counsel, (b) to review the £150 fee paid by successful applicants only and (c) to introduce an annual Queen's Counsel renewal fee. [66974]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no current plans to recover the departmental expenditure apportionable to the procedure for considering applications for Queen's Counsel by means of an application fee. He will, however, continue to review the situation. The £150 fee paid by successful applicants is currently under review. My noble
  53
  and learned Friend has no plans to introduce an annual Queen's Counsel renewal fee. The award of Queen's Counsel is by letters patent and is not subject to annual renewal.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department for each of the last five year, what was(a) the total number of applications to

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total number of applicants

  539

  492

  488

  500

  511

  Number of successful applicants

  77

  71

  66

  68

  60

  Number of female applicants

  43

  42

  40

  41

  46

  Number of successful female applicants

  9

  8

  4

  5

  10

  Number of applicants from an ethnic minority background

  11

  12

  14

  12

  18

  Number of successful ethnic minority background applicants

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Number of solicitor applicants

  —

  —

  5

  6

  7

  Number of successful solicitor applicants

  —

  —

  0

  2

  1

  Number of applicants under 38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Number of successful applicants under 38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Number of applicants over 50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95

  Number of successful applicants over 50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Solicitors, provided they met the eligibility criteria, have been able to apply since 1996.

  With regard to applicants under 38 and over 50 the information requested prior to 1998 is not available save at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules or guidance her Department has to govern the(a) formal and (b) informal interaction between her civil servants and commercial lobbyists. [66207]

  Number of appeals heard

  Number of appeals upheld

  Number of appeals dismissed

  Year

  Retained

  Wholetime

  Retained

  Wholetime

  Retained

  Wholetime

  1994

  8

  5

  3

  3

  5

  2

  1995

  5

  2

  2

  2

  3

  —

  1996

  2

  3

  1

  3

  1

  —

  1997

  6

  5

  4

  3

  2

  2

  1998

  5

  3

  4

  2

  1

  1

  The hon. Member should note that 44 cases in total were heard, 27 of which were upheld and 17 dismissed.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appeals under article 62 of the Firemen's Pension Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 1973 have been heard in each of the last five years in respect of(a) full-time firemen and (b) retained firemen; and in how many cases the appeal was decided in favour of the fireman. [66442]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  One appeal under article 62 of the Fireman Pension Scheme Order (NI) 1973 has been heard in the last 5 years (in 1994).
  54
  be made Queen's Counsel, (b) the number of successful applicants and (c) of (a) and (b), how many were (i) women, (ii) from ethnic minorities, (iii) below the age of 38, (iv) over the age of 50 and (v) solicitiors. [66952]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information is as follows:

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

  Firemen's Pensions
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appeals have been heard against the opinion of the medical practitioner of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland under Article 61 of the Firemen's Pension Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 1973 in each of the last five years in respect of(a) full-time firemen and (b) retained firemen; and in each year how many of the appeals found in favour of the firemen in each of the two categories. [66443]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Details of appeals to the opinion of the medical practitioner as requested for the last 5 years are shown in the table.

  This case was in respect of a retained firefighter and the appeal was decided in the appellant's favour.

  NIACRO
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums from the phase two programme administered by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders have been expended in each of the last four years in respect of persons who have had to leave Northern Ireland because of threats from terrorist organisations; and how many of these departures were the result of pressure from(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican terrorist organisations. [66568]
  55
  Mr. Ingram
  NIACRO run the Base 2 project which was established in 1990. The project aims to prevent individuals from being the victims of paramilitary punishment attacks. The services provided by the project are used by a number of statutory and voluntary agencies

  Overall levels of funding (by financial year)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 (to date)

  Making Belfast Work (MBW)

  80,000

  —

  —

  —

  Probation Board for NI (PBNI)

  —

  82,080

  82,080

  —

  Social Services Inspectorate

  11,851

  12,768

  —

  —

  Trusts

  10,000

  5,500

  37,580

  39,500

  Total

  101,851

  100,348

  119,660

  39,500

  The project does not receive funding from Central Government.

  The funds identified relate to the totality of the Base 2 activities and it is not possible to extract financial information that relates specifically to the cost of removing those under threat from Northern Ireland.

  Source of threat1

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Republican

  129

  238

  329

  337

  Loyalist

  90

  155

  218

  292

  Unknown

  5

  —

  16

  17

  1Figures are detailed by calendar year

  The table details the total numbers of people dealt with based on the origin of the threat against them.

  Final outcome—left country1

  Year

  Number

  1995

  55

  1996

  106

  1997

  81

  Date

  Visits

  21 January

  Inter-denominational Service at St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Cathedral, Armagh.

  5–8 April

  Convent of Mercy School, Rostrevor; Institute of Directors' Annual Dinner; Hillsborough Castle; Flax Trust; Wave Trauma Centre; Cornerstone Community Centre; Launch of EU Peace and Reconciliation Directive (PROTEUS), Belfast; St. Michael's Grammar School, Lurgan; St. Mark's High School, Arrenpoint.

  8–10 May

  Annual Dinner of St. Mary's Christian Brothers' School, Belfast.

  16 August

  Omagh in aftermath of bomb.

  22 August

  Inter-denominational Service, Omagh; Royal Victoria Hospital Belfast.

  21–22 October

  St. Joseph's High School; Clonalig Primary School, St. Brigid's Primary School, Crossmaglen; Creggan Parent and Toddler Association; Dove House Community; Rural Area Partnership in Derry; Well Woman Centre; Talking Hands, Londonderry, International Fund for Ireland projects in Brookeborough and Lisnaskea.

  17 November

  St. Oliver Plunkett's School, Forkhill, Bunscoil an luir, Newry, New Start Millennium Awards, Ashton Centre, Institute for Counselling and Personal Development, Amnesty International, Queen's University, St. Louise' School Concert, Belfast.

  16–17 December

  Graduation Ceremony, Queen's University; Mater Hospital, Belfast, Whiteabbey Primary School; Thornfield Trust Speech Disability Unit, Jordanstown.

  Note:

  All of the visits were private working visits.
  56
  including Social Services, Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), Families Against Intimidation and Terror (FAIT) and previously by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI). Base 2 also receive a large number of self referrals.

  Final outcome—left country1

  Year

  Number

  1998

  88

  1 Figures are detailed by calendar year

  The table relates to those people who were assisted to leave the country.

  I have also arranged for a copy of the Base 2 Annual Report for 1997 to be placed in the Library.

  Irish Presidential Visits
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the visits made to Northern Ireland in 1998 by the President of the Irish Republic and indicate(a) which were of a private nature and (b) which were official, showing in the latter case the (i) purpose of the visit and (ii) who issued the invitation. [66440]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The President of the Republic of Ireland paid eight visits to Northern Ireland during 1998. Details are as follows:

  Irish Language
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on developments in promoting the Irish language. [65305]

  Mr. McFall
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 20 January 1999,Official Report, columns 893–95.

  Cleft Palate
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many infants and children are waiting for operations to deal with cleft palate. [67017]

  Mr. McFall
  Information on the waiting list of children requiring surgery for Cleft Lip and Palate at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children is set out in the table:

  Table 1: Waiting list at 21 January 1999

  Number

  First surgery1

  Cleft palates

  11

  Cleft lip and palates

  4

  Pharynngo plasty

  5

  Second surgery

  Nasal adjustments

  17

  Lip revisions

  12

  1 It is generally accepted that those in the "first surgery" grouping should have their procedure carried out within 3 Month timescale

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the weeks ending(a) 5 December and (b) 12 December the number of punishment (i) beatings and (ii) shootings which took place in Northern Ireland; and how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalists and (ii) Republicans. [64196]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks for the period 29 November to 12 December.

  29 November to 5 December

  6 December to 12 December

  Totals

  Shootings

  By Loyalist

  1

  0

  1

  By Republican

  2

  1

  3

  Assaults

  By Loyalist

  1

  2

  3

  By Republican

  1

  0

  1

WALES

  NHS (Resources)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra resources he has provided for the NHS since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [66031]
  58
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Since May 1997, the following additional resources of £163 million has been allocated to NHS Wales as follows:

  £600,000 in May 1997 for Breast Cancer;

  £2.5 million in May 1997 for Primary Care;

  £9.5 million in October 1997 to alleviate winter pressures and emergencies;

  £113 million cash increase for 1998–99 including £60.2 million new money from the 1997 Budget and £1.3 million from Welsh Office Block;

  £25.1 million in March 1998 to bring inpatient waiting lists down; and,

  £12.5 million in November 1998 to alleviate winter pressures and emergencies.

  In July 1998, following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, an additional £175, £345 and £510 million—a total of over £1 billion—was announced to be available for health for the 3 years from April 1999.

  Nurses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurses there were in(a) 1980 and (b) 1990; and if he will make a statement. [66035]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The available information, which relates to all staff in the nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff group, is as follows:

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, Wales1

  Year

  Number

  1980

  20,778

  1990

  25,017

  1 Whole-time equivalent numbers in post at 30 September excluding pre-registration learners

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many whole-time equivalent nurses were employed in Wales on 30 April 1997; [66497]

  (2) how many whole-time equivalent nurses are currently employed in Wales. [66498]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on the whole-time equivalent number of staff in the nursing, midwifery and health visiting group is collected centrally as at the last day of each quarter. The available information is given in the following table.

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, Wales

  Date

  Number

  31 March 1997

  23,513

  30 September 1998

  23,691

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to encourage more people to enter the nursing profession. [66373]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In 1998 there were over 8,000 applications for around 1,000 student places for pre-registration nursing and midwifery education in Wales. While this suggests that there is not a recruitment problem to nurse training in Wales, action is being taken to ensure that this situation continues. This includes ensuring that
  59
  entry to pre-registration programmes remains as wide as possible; offering a range of programmes from diploma to undergraduate level all of which lead to registration; and encouraging the development of recruitment initiatives by individual education providers including formal links with local schools and colleges.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on nursing staff recruitment in the NHS in Wales. [66164]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information received from workforce planning data and the nurse executive survey in 1998 showed that there were around 500 funded vacancies for qualified nurses in the NHS in Wales. About 600 students completed their training and qualified in 1998 to meet this need. Recruitment difficulties are limited to a small number of individual Trusts but the year on year increases in training numbers should help to alleviate such problems.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital beds there were in(a) 1979 and (b) 1991; and if he will make a statement. [66033]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is as follows:In 1979 the average daily availability of NHS beds in Wales was 23,456. By 1991–92 this had fallen to 18,640.

  Best Value
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has taken to promote best value in local government; and if he will make a statement. [66438]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In July 1997 a joint Welsh Office and Welsh Local Government Association Project Group was established to develop and promote best value in Wales. This group also includes representatives from the TUC, CBI, Audit Commission, District Audit Service and the voluntary sector.

  The group has commissioned a 2 year evaluation study to test the best value policy framework. All 22 authorities, a combined fire authority and a police authority are now participating in this study which is being independently assessed by the Cardiff Business School. The work being done as part of the study will help the Assembly make orders and draw up guidance on how best value will operate in Wales.

  Each month this group meets the best value Project Managers from the study authorities to monitor progress and discuss policy issues arising from the study.

  The group has recently started a best value monthly newsletter. I enclose a copy for my hon. Friend to see. It is also currently negotiating the establishment of a best value website.

  In addition to this work, I am undertaking a series of visits to local authorities to promote best value and discuss progress with the study.

  My first visit was to Flintshire on 19 January. I also addressed a best value conference at a Neath Port Talbot on 15 January and will be speaking at another best value conference organised by the Audit Commission on 23 March.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the(a) current and (b) proposed budget of each division in Wales of the Welsh Development Agency. [66439]

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

  Council House Sales (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the amount of money realised from sales of council houses by Flintshire County Council. [66417]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Flintshire County Council has been in existence since 1 April 1996. Information on Flintshire's receipts from the sale of council houses is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  1.0

  1997–98

  11.6

  1998–99

  21.6

  1 Provisional outturn

  2 Local authority forecast

  Crime and Disorder Act 1998
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in the co-operation between Flintshire County Council and the North Wales Police Authority following the enactment of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [66420]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Flintshire Community Safety Executive, consisting of a variety of agencies from the local area including Flintshire County Council and the North Wales Police Authority, has been set up in order to meet the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Executive which has now met on three occasions has set out a programme of work and initial targets for the completion of a crime audit and a crime and disorder reduction strategy in line with the requirements of the Act. The crime audit was produced by a team of staff from various agencies and was published in November 1998. There has been widespread consultation on the crime audit. At the latest meeting of the Executive on 18 January 1999 the partnership agreed a draft crime and disorder reduction strategy which will be the subject of discussion at a Public Consultation Meeting to be held in mid-March in Flint.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy on traffic calming. [66412]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government have conducted trials across the United Kingdom to establish the most effective means of reducing traffic speeds and to reduce the risk of accidents caused by inappropriate driving behaviour. Our policy on trunk roads is to target sites with poor accident
  61
  records and/or excessive vehicular speeds for treatment. On some urban and residential roads research has shown that 20 mph is a realistic, sensible and effective level at which to set speed limits. When properly enforced, dramatic casualty reductions can be achieved. The Government have decided to amend the legislation to free local authorities from the requirement to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to introduce 20 mph zones.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he is making in his strategy to combat drugs abuse in (i) Wales and (ii) Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [66437]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh substance misuse strategy 'Forward Together' was launched in 1996. As part of this 5-year strategy, Drug and Alcohol Action Teams (DAATs) have been established in each of the five health authority areas in Wales, including North Wales. Each DAAT has reviewed the extent of the substance misuse problems in its area and has developed a local strategy to tackle them. 'Forward Together', and the subsequent formation of the Flintshire Local Advisory Team, has led to a marked increased in the joint delivery of services and a better co-ordination of activity across Flintshire with significant progress against a number of the strategy's objectives.

  'Forward Together' is currently being reviewed in the light of the new UK Anti-Drugs strategy 'Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain'.

  Midwives
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the(a) current situation and (b) forecast position in 12 months, with regard to midwife recruitment. [66183]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Staff recruitment remains a service issue. However, no major recruitment difficulties were identified in 1998 workforce planning round for midwives. The predicted demand from NHS Trusts in Wales for newly qualified midwives in 1999–2000 is 70. Training numbers across Wales will meet this demand. Information for 2000–01 will be available, following the outcome of the workforce planning exercise, in May 1999.

  School Management
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to allow private companies to take over the running of schools in Wales. [66182]

  Mr. Hain
  None. The running of schools is a matter for their governing bodies. Local education authorities (LEAs) have powers to intervene if they have serious concerns about a school; or if governors do not address failure or serious weakness identified in an inspection carried out under section 10 of the School Inspections Act 1996.

  The Secretary of State in turn can intervene if an LEA is failing to perform its functions. I have no evidence that any LEA in Wales is failing in its responsibilities towards schools where problems have been identified which would justify intervention.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is taking to ensure improved road safety in the vicinity of schools in Queensferry, Shotton and Connah's Quay; and if he will make a statement. [66411]

  Mr. Hain
  I recently announced that I have allocated £39,000 to Flintshire County Council, for 1999–2000, under the Safe Routes to School Initiative. This will help the local authority to improve road safety in the vicinity of eleven primary and two secondary schools in the Connah's Quay, Shotton and Queensferry areas.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what discussions he has had with the Treasury on EU Structural Fund match funding commitments in Wales; and what was the outcome of these discussions; [66472]

  (2) how much money has been identified by his Department to meet EU Structural Fund match funding commitments for 1999 to 2002; [66473]

  (3) how much money has been allocated in each Welsh Office department to meet EU Structural Fund match funding commitments in 1999 to 2002; [66474]

  (4) if EU Structural Fund match funding in Wales will be met from within the Barnett Formula Settlement. [66475]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the discussion held at the Welsh Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday, 19 January. As I reported then, the European Commission is still considering the new Structural Fund arrangements. Once these have been confirmed, the Government will review forecasts of European receipts contained in its overall expenditure plans. The Government will then consider the distribution of these for wider programmes and the way in which to meet the relevant requirements. I shall ensure that the interests of Wales are taken into account at each stage.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the last 10 years the amounts of(a) money Wales received from the EU through Structural Funds and (b) match funding money which the Welsh Office made available for Structural Fund projects; and what percentage of the potential money available was drawn down in Wales from EU Structural Funds in each year. [67355]

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

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to publish the 1997 Welsh House Condition Survey. [67282]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Current plans are to issue initial results from the 1997–98 Welsh House Condition Survey in April 1999 and a more detailed publication by the summer.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to implement proposals to abolish sixth forms in secondary schools. [67147]

  Mr. Hain
  There are no plans to abolish schools sixth forms in secondary schools. On the contrary in those schools with sixth forms, we are looking to increase pupil choice and opportunities.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to implement proposals to set up a new NDPB to fund and administer sixth forms. [67145]

  Mr. Michael
  There are no plans to set up and administer a new body to fund and administer sixth forms in Wales.

  Education and Training Action Group will produce a final document following consultation covering a range of proposals which will principally be for consideration by the National Assembly.

  Education and Training
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with teaching unions regarding the proposals in the report, "An Education and Training Action Plan for Wales". [67148]

  Mr. Hain
  The Group's draft Action Plan is currently the subject of wide public consultation, including the teaching unions.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with head teachers of secondary schools regarding the report, "An Education and Training Action Plan for Wales". [67146]

  Mr. Hain
  The Education and Training Action Group was established in November 1997.

  The Group's draft Action Plan is currently the subject of wide public consultation which has included all secondary schools in Wales. A conference specifically for the secondary schools' head teachers was held on 19 January.

  Porthmadog Hospital
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give approval for the project proposed by the North Wales Health Authority to build a new community hospital at Porthmadog. [67137]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The proposal to build a new community hospital at Porthmadog will be considered along with all other priorities for 1999–2000.

  A487
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce the start for work on constructing the Llanllyfni, Penygroes and Groeslon bypass on the A487 trunk road. [67055]

  Mr. Hain
  We are still considering the resource implications of commencing work on this scheme. An announcement will be made shortly.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  World Athletics Championships (2003)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's bid to host the 2003 World Athletics Championships at Wembley. [66618]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government are committed to attracting major sporting events to this country and supporting bids which are of genuine high quality and are economically viable. The bid to hold the 2003 World Athletics Championship is being made by the London 2003 Consortium and was given full Government support when it was presented to the IAAF in November. The IAAF will announce the result of the bidding process in April 1999.

  Lottery Funding (ICT)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out the basis on which it was decided that National Lottery funding for ICT for teachers should not be made available to(a) the independent sector, (b) special schools, (c) assistant teachers and (d) teachers on maternity leave. [65941]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The basis on which the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) funds the ICT initiative for teachers was set out in their Policy Directions, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Lottery funding for ICT training for teachers is available for teachers of maintained special schools; for teachers on maternity leave, if they are currently registered with a school; and for assistant teachers, as opposed to teacher assistants who are not normally teachers, if they are registered at a school. Independent schools and teachers assistants are not funded under this initiative because of the need to maintain a viable programme within the limited Lottery money available. However, there is nothing to prevent independent schools from using their own resources to take advantage of available training once the Lottery funded scheme is in place.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when it was decided that vouchers for ICT training for teachers in schools funded by the National Lottery should be paid to local education authorities and not headteachers. [65942]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The process by which the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) will fund ICT training for teachers was determined by the NOF Board, which will calculate training entitlements for individual schools across the United Kingdom.

  Local education authorities in Wales, education authorities in Scotland, and education and library boards in Northern Ireland will have a delegated role in distributing entitlements to schools on behalf of NOF. In England, schools will be responsible for applying for their training entitlements.

  Copies of the Policy Directions for NOF's ICT initiative for teachers are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Tourism (North West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the annual amount of financial support provided by his Department for tourism in the North-west in each of the last five years. [66897]

  Janet Anderson
  The North-west, like all parts of England, benefits from the work of the British Tourist Authority and of the English Tourist Board. For 1998–99, the BTA has a grant of £35 million and the ETB a grant of £9.7 million.

  A significant part of the grant to the ETB is passed on to the ten regional tourist boards. ETB funding to the North-west Tourist Board over the last five years has been as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  292,000

  1997–98

  292,619

  1996–97

  299,274

  1995–96

  414,000

  1994–95

  400,199

  Source:

  English Tourist Board

  New support structures announced on 14 December 1998, Official Report, column 588, as part of the results of the DCMS Departmental Spending Review, will ensure that in future more effective use is made of public spending on tourism in England, with a greater proportion going to the regions.

  In addition, tourism in the North-west has benefited, both directly and indirectly, from National Lottery funding (nearly £450 million in total has gone to the region), and from the support under the European Regional Development Fund.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance his Department is providing to ensure that beaches in the North West are brought up to Blue Flag standard. [66928]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department does not provide assistance specifically for the purpose of raising the quality of beaches. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has asked the Environment Agency and North West Water to work closely together to sort out the remaining problems and last year he approved additional expenditure to bring improvements to the Fylde Coast bathing waters. Options for further investment to achieve water quality required for Blue Flags are being considered as part of the current review of water company prices.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans exist to increase the broadcasting coverage of Channel 5 to areas that currently are unable to receive transmissions, with particular reference to Worcester. [67029]

  Janet Anderson
  The Independent Television Commission (ITC) is responsible for monitoring the terms of the Channel 5 licence, which include issues regarding reception or availability of their services. Worcester is served primarily by the Malvern relay which does not 66
  carry Channel 5. I understand that there are currently no plans to install Channel 5 analogue at Malvern. However, Malvern, is one of the 81 transmitter sites which comprise the launch phase of digital terrestrial television which will offer Channel 5. Digital terrestrial television broadcasts from Malvern are expected to begin in the summer of this year. Channel 5 has also enhanced its existing coverage by offering its service free-to-air on cable and satellite.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Anthony Stewart
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the decision not to prosecute Asda or its staff following the death of Mr. Anthony Robert Stewart. [66848]

  The Attorney-General
  On 16 October 1997 Mr. Anthony Robert Stewart died following an incident in the restaurant at Asda Superstore in Wallington. Mr. Stewart had been restrained by members of Asda staff.

  The pathologist concluded that the cause of death was asphyxiation due to the position in which Mr. Stewart had been restrained: postural asphyxiation.

  The police investigated the incident and the members of staff were interviewed under caution. The police sent a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  As with all cases which involve the unexpected death of persons, effectively in custody, the papers received the most careful scrutiny and consideration to determine whether a criminal offence may have been committed. The reviewing Crown Prosecutor considered possible offences of assault and manslaughter against the individuals and corporate manslaughter against Asda. In addition, the Crown Prosecutor obtained the advice of Senior Treasury Counsel.

  The Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction of a criminal offence by any one of the individuals involved or by the company, arising out of Mr. Stewart's tragic death.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Early Retirement)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been(a) considered and rejected and (b) made since the publication of the Home Affairs Committee First report of Session 1997–98 on police disciplinary and complaints procedures (HC 894) into the ability of police officers to avoid disciplinary procedures by taking retirement. [66648]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Affairs Committee's Inquiry Report into police disciplinary and complaints procedures made no recommendations about police officers taking retirement to avoid disciplinary proceedings. However, it expressed concerns about officers who go sick, which effectively halts disciplinary proceedings, and recommended that the regulations should be changed to enable chief officers to complete
  67
  hearings in the absence of an accused officer (recommendation 33). The Government accepted this recommendation, which had in fact already been agreed for new procedures then in draft form. New police misconduct procedures, which incorporate this and a number of other important changes, will come into force on 1 April 1999.

  The present police regulations already provide that, where police officers are suspended in connection with disciplinary proceedings, retirement cannot take place. Police authorities and forces will seek to complete any outstanding disciplinary proceedings before retirement but this is sometimes not possible in the time remaining. Also, under the police pensions regulations, police authorities have discretion to decide against requiring an officer to retire on the grounds of ill health and may, therefore, withhold medical retirement in a case where there are outstanding disciplinary proceedings.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the procedures under which Metropolitan Police officers are able to take early retirement to avoid facing disciplinary action that is outstanding at the time of their retirement. [66478]

  Mr. Straw
  Police officers throughout England and Wales up to and including the rank of superintendent may retire either after 30 years' service with a full pension being paid, or after 25 years' service with a reduced pension payable when they reach age 50, provided they give one month's notice. They may leave without an immediate pension before they have served for 25 years, for instance where they have found different employment.

  Police authorities and forces aim to complete any outstanding disciplinary proceedings before retirement but this is sometimes not possible in the time remaining. In those disciplinary cases in which police officers are already suspended, retirement cannot take place. Under the Police Pensions Regulations, police authorities have discretion to decide against requiring an officer to retire on the grounds of ill health and may, therefore, withhold medical retirement in a case where there are outstanding disciplinary proceedings. The implications of these procedures for police discipline are matters which we keep constantly under review with regard to all forces, to identify the potential for improved performance in this aspect.

  I have made clear that I will, of course, consider any relevant recommendations which arise from the Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence.

  Torture
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1998,Official Report, column 210, what guidance has been given to state parties by the UN Committee on Torture on appropriate responses to its recommendations; what measures he will take to act upon its recommendations prior to the deadline for the fourth UK Periodic report in 2002; and what steps he has taken to secure the agreement of other Ministerial departments to respond to the recommendations of the UN Committee. [66084]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: The United Nations Committee against Torture has issued no specific guidance to state parties. However, the United
  68
  Nations has published guidance on the reporting requirements of the six main human rights treaties in its "Manual on Human Rights Reporting". This requires a periodic report to contain information on any action taken as a result of conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee.

  The Government have taken note of the Committee against torture's recommendations made after the oral hearing on 16 November 1998. All interested Departments have been made aware of its recommendations, and will give them due consideration. The Government wrote to the Committee on 25 November about its third recommendation relating to section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I am sending a copy of that letter to my hon. Friend and placing a copy in the Library. The United Kingdom's Fourth Periodic Report to the Committee will be prepared in consultation with all interested Departments, as has been the case with earlier reports.

  Cycling on Pavements
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to introduce regulations permitting fixed penalties for the offence of cycling on pavements. [66849]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Order to introduce a fixed penalty for the offence of cycling on the pavement is being drafted and will be laid as soon as possible.

  DNA Database
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the letter of 21 July (FL/98 333/1039/3 PO 10689/98) to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what progress has been made in the joint research programme between the Forensic Science Service and the police on the development of the national DNA data-base. [65398]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: The development of the National DNA database is currently being reviewed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Forensic Science Service (FSS) on the basis of its performance to date, the elimination of the analysis backlog in the spring, and the emerging results from joint projects between the FSS and individual police forces. I will write to my hon. Friend when the results are available.

  On wider issues of the usefulness of DNA analysis which was also covered by the letter of 18 June 1998, the joint research programme has assessed the value of an alternative and more sensitive method of DNA analysis known as Mitochondrial DNA. This can be used to analyse human material such as hair shafts, faeces and fingernails, which cannot be analysed using conventional DNA methods. This has proved valuable in casework. Other research to identify and use commonplace characteristics is on-going.

  Firearms (Compensation)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the National Audit Office study into the surrender of handguns and compensation schemes. [66817]
  69
  Mr. Boateng
  The arrangements for the submission of National Audit Office reports are a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, but I understand that his report on the handgun surrender and compensation schemes is likely to be submitted soon, following the final stages of clearance with the Departmental Accounting Officer which are currently in hand.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list how each new appointee to the Firearms Consultative Committee fulfils the criteria provided by section 22 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. [66816]

  Appointees

  The Earl of Shrewsbury and Waterford

  Chairman—Farmer and game shooter

  Graham Bennet

  Assistant Chief Constable (Designate), Fife Constabulary

  Tony Burden

  Chief Constable, South Wales Police

  Brian Carter

  Director of Gun Trade Association and firearms dealer

  Robin Cooper

  Head of Firearms Policy Team, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  Jim Duncan

  Superintendent, Grampian Police

  Sandy Ewing

  Firearms consultant to National Rifle Association

  William Harriman

  Head of Firearms, British Association of Shooting and Conservation

  Tony Hill

  Engineer, member of Gun Control Network

  John Hoare

  Secretary and Chief Executive of National Small-Bore Rifle Association

  Barry Hughes

  Barrister. Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutor

  Gill Marshall-Andrews

  Chair of the Gun Control Network

  David McCrone

  Assistant Chief Constable, Greater Manchester Police

  David Penn

  Curator of the Exhibits and Firearms, Imperial War Museum

  Bob Pitcher

  Proof Master of the London Proof House

  Stephen Smith

  Head of Technical Services, National Farmers Union

  Ian Snedden

  Head of Police Department, Scottish Office

  Tom Warlow

  Forensic Scientist and ballistics expert

  Graham Widdecombe

  Head of Firearms and Explosives Section, Home Office

  James Winnington

  Farmer and magistrate

  In making these appointments, the Secretary of State was satisfied that all members appeared to have knowledge and experience—either direct or indirect—of one or more of the matters set out in section 22(1) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

  National Family and Parenting Institute
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what stage he has reached in the establishment of the National Family and Parenting Institute; [66736]

  (2) what requirements there will be for the National Family and Parenting Institute to have regard to different social, ethnic, religious, moral and spiritual values; [66738]

  (3) what will be the arrangements for the selection and appointment of trustees for the National Family and Parenting Institute. [66737]

  Mr. Boateng
  I hope to make an announcement on the Chair of the Board of Trustees for the National Family and Parenting Institute before April 1999.

  I am being advised on the appointment of the Board of Trustees by a small group of representatives from key family support charities and others from the voluntary sector and professional bodies. The Trustee body will be broadly based, consistent with the suggestion of the reference group that it should not be too unwieldy.
  70
  Mr. Boateng
  I am satisfied that all new appointees to the Firearms Consultative Committee appear to have knowledge and experience—either direct or indirect—of some or all of the matters set out in section 22(1) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Firearms Consultative Committee whom he has nominated in accordance with the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 together with the reasons for which they were appointed. [66936]

  Mr. Boateng
  The following persons have been appointed to the Firearms Consultative Committee:

  The Government will not seek the power to appoint future trustees of the National Family and Parenting Institute, which will be an independent charity.

  In applying for Government funding to take forward its work programme, the Institute's trustees will need to adhere to the grant conditions attached to the Family Support Grant which require that applicants must include a strategy to ensure that their services reach, are relevant to, and get taken up by black and ethnic minority organisations.

  Brian Parsons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Hampshire as to the cost of the investigation into the handling by the Devon and Cornwall Police of the Brian Parsons case. [66976]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that the cost of the investigation to date, excluding the salary costs of the officers on the inquiry, is £84,000. This is being borne by the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.

  Local Deprivation Indicators
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which measures of local deprivation his Department and its agencies use in considering allocation of funds to local projects. [66719]
  71
  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office funds a number of local projects. In considering the allocation of funds, account is taken of whether the project meets the criteria for the individual scheme and the aims, objectives and targets in the Public Service Agreement for the Home Office set out in the White Paper "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform and Accountability" (cm 4181).

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make grants to youth organisations to match in full the fee required by the Criminal Records Bureau for checks on adult volunteers. [66979]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have him on 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 337.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will take steps to ensure that revenue from fines imposed for speeding are made available to fund speed limit enforcement measures; [66735]

  (2) what additional funds is he planning to make available for the funding of speed limit enforcement cameras. [66711]

  Mr. Boateng
  Enforcement of road traffic law is an operational matter for chief officers of police and they decide how to allocate their funding. We do not provide policing funds specifically designated for speed enforcement cameras and there are no plans to do so under current arrangements. But on 9 December, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced criteria under which fine income might be used to finance specific projects. Additional funding for speed enforcement camera is being considered under those criteria.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders were made between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998; and how many have not yet been executed. [67345]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998, 1,090 deportation orders were made, of which around 650 have yet to be given effect.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the deportation orders made between 1 June and 30 November 1998 were in respect of people who were in custody. [67347]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information relating to the number of persons who were in custody when deportation orders were made against them between 1 June and 30 November 1998 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were deported between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998; and of these how many were on the strength of deportation orders made before 1 June 1997. [67346]
  72
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Between 1 June 1997 and 31 May 1998, some 720 persons were removed as a result of the enforcement of a deportation order. Around 60 per cent. of those persons were removed on the strength of deportation orders made before 1 June 1997.

  An additional 1,230 persons were removed or departed voluntarily during the same period following the initiation of deportation action against them but without a deportation order being made.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into animal experiments. [67339]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We estimate that such a Royal Commission would cost at least £800,000 per annum and that it would need to sit for between two and three years, although both the cost and duration of such a Commission would depend on the terms of reference and other factors which are difficult to assess and quantify.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he has taken to promote the recruitment of special constables among members of the ethnic minority communities. [66935]

  Mr. Boateng
  As part of Specials Week, a week in January to highlight the Special Constabulary and assist police forces with their campaigns to recruit more special constables, I visited events in four force areas specifically targeting ethnic communities.

  Cleveland Police held an open day at the Racial Equality Council offices in Middlesbrough on 11 January during which I launched Specials Week. In Bradford, West Yorkshire ethnic minority special constables are involved in a scheme in which they work in their own communities promoting community safety initiatives and recruitment to the Special Constabulary.

  The 50 members of the West Midlands Police Authority, many of whom are from ethnic minority communities, have agreed to take part in a programme to each recruit a person from their community to the Special Constabulary. Leicestershire Constabulary invited representatives from local religious, ethnic and business groups to an event at a community centre in Leicester to recognise the work of special constables within the ethnic communities.

  All these forces, and others with high ethnic minority populations, are developing good working relationships with the ethnic communities through the work of the regular force and the contribution of special constables.

  In addition, last November the Home Office invited police forces to staff a stand at the Mega Mela exhibition at the Birmingham NEC, an event in celebration of the Asian culture. Asian officers, including special constables, were able to talk to visitors about what it is like to work for the police and encourage applicants to the service.

  A copy of a recruitment leaflet produced for the event has been placed in the Library.

  Jeff and Jenny Bramley
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds of the police appeal for Jeff and Jenny Bramley. [66934]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand from the Chief Constable that the total estimated cost to the Cambridgeshire Constabulary of the investigation to trace the Bramley family was £50,000.

  Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the number of staff on establishment at Feltham Young Offenders Institution when it is at full strength; and what is the current number of staff at Feltham; [67048]

  (2) when it is planned to end doubled-up cell accommodation at Feltham Young Offenders Institution. [67047]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 554.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders on remand at Feltham Young Offenders' Unit were locked in their cells for 22 hours or more on any day between July and October 1998. [66399]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service records time out of cell for prisoners by establishment. Recording of time out of cell is not broken down between remand and convicted prisoners and separate figures could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Between 29 June and 12 December 1998 at Feltham Young Offenders Institution, the average time out of cell for wings which held remand prisoners, was 22.5 hours per week. It is not possible to identify which prisoners did not receive more than two hours out of cell as the figures available are calculated on a wing rather than an individual basis.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the practice of doubling up on cell accommodation at Feltham is planned to end. [66400]

  Mr. George Howarth
  At the end of December 1998, 14 prisoners at Feltham were located in seven cells designed for one. Steps are being taken to address this issue and doubling is expected to cease at Feltham shortly.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many patients sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 aged(a) 5 to 17 years and (b) 17 to 21 years were held in the health care centre at Feltham Young Offenders Unit between October 1997 and December 1998. [66395]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Between October 1997 and December 1998, seven prisoners aged from 15 to 17 and 39 aged from 18 to 21 were transferred to hospital from Feltham Young Offenders Institution by direction of the Home Secretary under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The majority will have been held in the health care centre before being transferred.

  Prison Service (Recruitment)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the Job Simulation Assessment Centre system of prison service recruitment. [67046]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Job Simulation Assessment Centres (JSACs) form part of the new approach to recruitment within the Prison Service. JSACs have been developed to provide fairer, more objective and more reliable assessments of candidates than the recruitment process which they replaced.

  The evidence to date is that the use of JSACs has resulted in a perceptible improvement in the calibre of new prison officers under training together with increased numbers entering the Prison Service from ethnic minorities. The Prison Service is continuing to evaluate the new arrangements with the assistance of Goldsmiths College, University of London.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned to ascertain how asylum seekers who have not taken up the offer of assistance under the National Assistance Act 1948 are currently supporting themselves. [67114]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have commissioned no new research into this subject.

  Prisons Inspectorate
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons were visited in England and Wales by Sir David Ramsbotham during the last 12 months; and how many of his reports of such visits have to date been published. [67223]

  Mr. George Howarth
  During the year 15 January 1998 to 15 January 1999, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons visited 40 Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. To date, 25 reports have been published. Ten reports have been submitted to the Home Secretary and are currently with the Prison Service which, in line with the agreed protocol, is checking their factual accuracy. The remaining five reports are still in preparation.

  Prison Officers (Ethnic Minority Communities)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of uniformed prison officers who are working in prisons in England and Wales are from ethnic minority communities. [67220]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As at 31 December 1998, 2.5 per cent of uniformed prison officer grades are from ethnic minority communities.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquiries were made to the PEO of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon on 15 January. [67239]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On Monday 18 January 1999, 754 callers came to the Public Enquiry Office in Croydon.

  Electronic Warfare
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the threats posed to systems and data, critical to the national infrastructure, by electronic attack. [67441]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government will be introducing a series of measures to minimise the risk of electronic attack. This will enhance the United Kingdom's reputation as a safe place to undertake electronic commerce. The present risk should not be exaggerated but we must take action. The measures include:ensuring that within Government all critical systems are identified and that the protection of those systems is effectively managed and audited; working with the private sector to develop measures, which keep pace with the levels of risk, to ensure adequate standards of protection for the key systems falling within the critical national infrastructure;
  raising awareness and standards of information security more generally in the private sector by pursuing existing initiatives to promote best practice; and developing a dialogue on these issues with international partners.

  In view of my responsibilities for crime prevention and public protection, I will be taking lead responsibility within government for this new work. Government Departments will ensure that the security of their systems is kept under review and, in relevant cases, existing initiatives are pursued with the private sector.

  Ensuring that our electronic systems are properly protected from electronic attack is a longer-term enterprise which will not be at the expense of the immediate challenge we are facing to deal with the Millennium Bug.

  Circuses (Winter Quarters)
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers local authorities have to regulate circus winter quarters. [67414]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Winter quarters are not defined in animal welfare legislation, but are taken as meaning the place where the circus animals are kept during the winter while the circus is not touring.

  Under the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925, local authorities and the police have the power to enter at all reasonable times and inspect any premises in which performing animals are kept for training or exhibition, and to inspect the animals kept there.

  Under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, local authorities have the power to inspect any premises where any wild animal is kept. The Act does not apply to any dangerous wild animal kept in a circus, which is defined as including
  "any place where animals are kept or introduced wholly or mainly for the purpose of performing tricks or manoeuvres".

  For winter quarters, local authorities have the power to enforce, on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and other relevant statutory provisions within the meaning of the Act.

  Home Detention Curfew Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were eligible to 76
  be considered for release on 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 subject to an enhanced risk procedure. [67316]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We estimate that about 135 prisoners will meet the eligibility criteria under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to be considered for a home detention curfew starting on 28 January 1999. All prisoners eligible to be assessed for the home detention curfew scheme would be subject to a rigorous enhanced risk assessment if this was judged necessary in the particular case.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the timetable for further releases after 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and what is the most recent estimate of the number of prisoners to be released. [66992]

  Mr. George Howarth
  From 28 January, prisoners eligible for home detention curfew under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will, if assessed as suitable for home detention curfew, be placed on curfew on their home detention curfew eligibility date, or as soon as possible thereafter once the assessment has been completed. Prisoners whose eligibility date falls on a weekend or bank holiday will not be released until the next working day. The numbers of offenders on home detention curfew will build up over the 60 days after 28 January to reach the standard number of offenders likely to be on curfew at any one time.

  The numbers of prisoners placed on home detention curfew will depend on the assessments conducted by prison governors. On the basis of trials of the risk assessment conducted in a range of establishments last year, it was provisionally estimated that around 4,000 offenders might be on home detention curfew at any one time.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners to be released on 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were subject to an enhanced risk assessment procedure. [66989]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The assessments for home detention curfew are still ongoing. I will write to the hon. Member after 28 January, when this information becomes available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners eligible to be considered for release on 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are serving sentences of(a) three years or (b) more than three years. [67313]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This data will not be available until after 28 January. The likely numbers would be too small for a reliable estimate to be made on the basis of more global figures. I will write to the hon. Member after 28 January when this information is available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are(a) eligible for release and (b) being released on 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [66988]
  77
  Mr. George Howarth
  We estimate that about 135 prisoners will meet the eligibility criteria under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to be considered for a home detention curfew starting on 28 January 1999. If 50 per cent. of those eligible were suitable for release on home detention curfew, this would mean that an estimated 60–70 prisoners would be placed on home detention curfew on 28 January.

  No eligible prisoner will be placed on the home detention curfew scheme without the completion of a rigorous assessment of their suitability. The assessments for home detention curfew are still ongoing. I will write to the hon. Member when information on the numbers of prisoners who were curfewed, on 28 January 1999 is available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners to be released on 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are serving sentences as a result of convictions for offences(a) of violence, (b) of burglary and (c) to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies. [66990]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The assessments for home detention curfew are still ongoing. I will write to the hon. Member after 28 January, when this information is available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners eligible to be considered for release on home detention curfew on 28 January are serving sentences as a result of convictions for offences(a) of violence, (b) of burglary and (c) to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies. [67314]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We estimate that about 45 prisoners serving sentences as a result of convictions for violence, about 40 prisoners serving sentences as a result of convictions for burglary, and less than 10 prisoners serving sentences as a result of convictions to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies, would, on 28 January, meet the eligibility criteria set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for the home detention curfew scheme. However, no offender serving a sentence as a result of convictions for offences to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies will be placed on a home detention curfew other than in exceptional circumstances and following the most rigorous enhanced risk assessment.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if offenders sentenced to three years imprisonment under the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 relating to minimum sentences for persistent burglars will be eligible for release on home detention curfew. [67142]

  Mr. Boateng
  Those sentenced under the provisions of section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 are not automatically excluded from being considered for the Home Detention Curfew scheme. However, Home Detention Curfew is not an entitlement, and only those prisoners who pass a risk assessment will be allowed on the scheme.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners to be released on 28 January under the home detention curfew 78
  provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have curfew conditions specifying (a) nine hours, (b) a period of between nine and 12 hours and (c) more than 12 hours as the period to which they are subject to a home detention curfew. [66987]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners to be released on 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are serving sentences of(a) three years and (b) more than three years imprisonment. [66991]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The assessments for home detention curfew are still ongoing. I will write to the hon. Member after 28 January, when this information is available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners who are(a) to be released and (b) eligible for release on 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were serving sentences of six months' imprisonment. [67315]

  Mr. George Howarth
  These data will not be available until after 28 January. The likely numbers would be too small for a reliable estimate to be made on the basis of more global figures. I will write to the hon. Member after 28 January when this information is available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long is spent in custody by(a) an offender serving a sentence of 10 weeks imprisonment and (b) an offender serving a sentence of three months imprisonment who is suitable for release on home detention curfew. [67312]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A prisoner who is serving a sentence of ten weeks imprisonment would normally be entitled to automatic release once he had served half of that period. The period in custody may last, however, up to the full ten weeks if the prisoner is subject to additional days imposed by the prison governor for disciplinary offences.

  An offender serving a sentence of three months imprisonment would normally be entitled to automatic release after serving half that period. If he were allowed home detention curfew, he could expect to spend 30 days in custody, and then serve the period until the halfway point of sentence on a curfew enforced by electronic monitoring. Home detention curfew is not an entitlement, and only those prisoners who pass a risk assessment will be allowed on the scheme. The period in custody may last up to the full three months in custody if the prisoner is subject to additional days imposed by the prison governor for disciplinary offences.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the reply of 14 January from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), if the distinct estate for boys aged 15 to 17 years remanded
  79
  or sentenced to custody is (a) to be managed by the Prison Service and (b) to be located in existing Prison Service premises. [66993]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The new distinct estate for boys aged 15 to 17-years-old, remanded or sentenced to custody, will be managed by the Prison Service, either directly or under contract, and will comprise of a mix of dedicated juvenile establishments and juvenile units within Young Offender Institutions. The premises will be upgraded to offer enhanced regime facilities and, where necessary, adapted to ensure the separation of 15 to 17-year-old boys and older young offenders.

  Calfa Case
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the decision of the European Court in the case of Calfa (C-348/96) on(a) criminal law in the United Kingdom and (b) the development of a EU system of criminal law; and if he will make a statement. [67054]

  Kate Hoey
  The judgment of the European Court in the case of Calfa (C-348/96) has no effect on criminal law in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom does not have legislation requiring automatic deportation akin to the Greek law at issue in this case. Nor does the judgment significantly further the development of an European Union system of criminal law. The judgment is in line with previous jurisprudence of the Court and is concerned with the compatibility of the Greek law with Community law on free movement.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders are currently subject to electronic tagging. [67143]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As of 18 January 1999, 540 offenders are being electronically monitored in England and Wales; 447 offenders under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, 55 under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and 38 cases in which electronic monitoring has been imposed as a condition of bail.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for immigration, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, (Mr. O'Brien) plans to reply to the letter of 23 December from the hon. Member for Hertsmere. [66986]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will write shortly.

  My reply will also respond to the points raised in the hon. Member's further letter of 24 January.

  Life Sentences
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the mandatory life sentence for murder. [66212]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no plans to review the mandatory life sentence for murder.

  Young Offenders (Medical Assessment and Examination)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department has issued on the medical assessment and examination of young offenders on induction into young offender units. [66392]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service published health care standards cover the health assessment and examination of all prisoners, including young offenders, on first reception into custody. These were laid down in 1994.

  Prison Visitors (Drugs Smuggling)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to deter prisoners and their visitors from smuggling drugs into prison through visits. [67724]

  Mr. Straw
  Governors have a range of sanctions available to deal with visitors, prisoners and young offenders involved in such activity. But I am keen to see a more consistent approach across the prison estate. To this end, I have asked the Director General of the Prison Service to introduce a more standardised response.

  It is clear that most drugs coming into prison are brought in by visitors. I intend to provide governors with a new power to ban a visitor for a specified time. The imposition of a ban, and its duration, will be determined by the quantity and type of drugs passed, the relationship between the visitor, prisoner or young offender and the circumstances of the offence. I would expect a typical ban to be at least three months. In cases where a ban is not justified, visitors may be subject to warnings, closed visits and increased security. Prison and Young Offender Institution staff will continue to report all attempts to smuggle drugs to the police.

  Prisoners and young offenders believed to be involved in bringing in drugs will face the increased use of closed visits, regular targeted mandatory drug testing, and disciplinary proceedings.

  These measures will support one of the key elements in our overall prison drugs strategy namely supply reduction. The Prison Service will also maintain its commitment to the provision of drug treatment and education within prisons. Last year's Comprehensive Spending Review resulted in an additional £14 million for treatment, £6 million for throughcare and £2.5 million for voluntary testing.

  A short implementation phase for the new measures will take place, enabling relevant parties to be briefed on the new arrangements, before they are universally implemented on 1 April 1999.

  Sexual Offences Review
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government will announce the terms of reference for their review of sexual offences. [67722]

  Mr. Straw
  The intention to review sexual offences and penalties was announced by the then Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), on 15 June
  81
  1998, Official Report, column 10. I have today published the terms of reference of this review. Copies of a consultation leaflet describing the review, and inviting views to inform its work, have been placed in the Library.

  The terms of reference of the review are:
  "To review the sexual offences in the common and statute law of England and Wales, and make recommendations that will:
  Provide coherent and clear sexual offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation;
  Enable abusers to be appropriately punished; and
  Be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act."

  The review will be conducted by a Steering Group of officials from relevant Departments and expert advisers. This Group will have the benefit of advice from an External Reference Group made up of individuals and organisations with experience, expertise and opinions on a range of issues relevant to the consideration of sexual offences. The review should take about a year to complete its work and its recommendations will form the basis of a consultation paper.

  Child Protection
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Interdepartmental Working Group on Preventing Unsuitable People from Working with Children and Abuse of Trust has made its report; and if he will make a statement. [67723]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today placed a copy of the report of the Interdepartmental Working group in the Library. This follows their interim report on abuse of trust which I placed in the Library on 25 November last year.

  The Working Group have made a number of recommendations in principle for establishing an integrated scheme to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children. Following a written consultation exercise they undertook initial discussion of the emerging proposals with a number of organisations outside Government before making their report and received their broad support. Their report acknowledges there is much work to be done on the scheme including further consultation. The detailed elements of the scheme will need to be worked up before firm proposals can be made.

  The Government welcome the report as the basis for an integrated scheme to provide greater protection for children and, in due course, vulnerable adults. We have asked the Working Group to work up the proposals as a matter of priority with a view to bringing forward detailed recommendations. Primary legislation will be required to put the new scheme in place.

  The integrated scheme envisages a central access point for three sources of information, criminal records (with certain offences attracting a ban on working with children); List 99 (maintained by the Department for Education and Employment); and the Consultancy Index (maintained by the Department of Health). This central access point would be the Criminal Records Bureau. The Protection of Children Bill currently before Parliament makes provision for the necessary amendment to Part V of the Police Act 1997 for the Bureau to act as a one stop shop able to receive and pass on information from List 99
  82
  and the Consultancy Index. This should allow work on this wider role to form part of the work now underway on establishing the Criminal Records Bureau.

  Strategic Police Operations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department issues on the provision of information by police constabulary or police authorities on the costs to the public purse of major strategic police operations. [66333]

  Mr. Boateng
  No central guidance has been issued. It is for the police authority and the chief constable to account for the force's expenditure. Chief Constables will generally maintain records of the cost of major police operations and investigations not only for the purposes of sound financial management, but to keep their police authorities and the public informed.

  We issued guidance on efficiency planning to Chief Constables and police authorities last November. We are also working with the service to develop a robust and consistent approach to activity costing, which will help the service to identify and manage the pressures it has.

  EU Legislation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent his Department treats EU legislation as an international agreement; and if he will make a statement. [66914]

  Kate Hoey
  Legally binding instructions adopted pursuant to Title V or Title VI of the Treaty of European Union (the "Second and Third Pillars") are treated as international agreements governed by international law. In this way, they differ from legislation adopted under the Treaties establishing the European Communities, which forms part of community law.

  Channel Islands
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the nature of the advice given to the Channel Islands representatives by the Minister of State, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on 16 October 1998 on their constitutional position, with particular reference to the European Union Code of Conduct on Business Taxation. [66913]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following the meeting on 16 October between my noble Friend, the Minister of State, Lord Williams of Mostyn, United Kingdom officials and representatives of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, descriptions of the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man, discussed with the Island authorities, were submitted to the European Union Code of Conduct Group.

CABINET OFFICE

  Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what(a) secretarial and (b) other administrative help is given to right hon. and hon. Liberal

  83
  Democrat Members of the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee; and what is the estimated cost of this assistance to date. [66880]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: No dedicated staff support is provided to the Liberal Democrats. There are two individuals (one in 10 Downing Street and one in the Cabinet Office Secretariat) who are the designated points of liaison with the Liberal Democrats in relation to the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee. This role is undertaken as part of their normal job and no additional costs are involved.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Claimants (Facilities)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision is planned for disabled claimants attending Single Gateway to Work interviews in job centres which do not have appropriate toilet facilities; and what plans he has to offer such interviews in alternative venues which do have appropriate toilet facilities. [67393]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employment Service (ES) have been interviewing people with disabilities to help them, where appropriate, into work for many years. Since 1995 the Employment Service has been implementing a planned programme of works in its Jobcentres to improve access and facilities for disabled people, including disabled toilets. 64 per cent. of all Jobcentres have disabled toilet provision.

  Where dedicated disabled toilets are not available, Jobcentre staff are sympathetic to the needs of their disabled clients and make staff facilities available to them. Where wheelchair access is a problem and there are no disabled toilets available, disabled clients can if they wish, be interviewed at another nearby Jobcentre with facilities or, if necessary in their own homes.

  Month

  Consultation Document

  Response Time

  January

  Numeracy matters: The preliminary report of the numeracy task force

  10 weeks

  February

  Draft guidance on LEA educational development plans

  10 weeks

  March

  LEA-School relations: Draft Code of Practice

  10 weeks

  The regulations of early education and day care

  16 weeks

  April

  Parent governor representatives on education committees

  14 weeks

  Implications of religious designation

  10 weeks

  Homework: Draft guidelines for secondary schools

  10 weeks

  Homework: Draft guidelines for primary schools

  10 weeks

  Education and day care

  10 weeks

  Induction for new teachers—a consultation document

  10 weeks

  Composition of the general teaching council (GTC)

  13 weeks

  Meeting the childcare challenge—Green paper on national childcare strategy + summary

  10 weeks

  New arrangements for effective student support in further education

  10 weeks

  The education (Grammar School ballots) draft regulations 1998

  10 weeks

  The religious character of schools (designated procedure) draft regulations 1998

  10 weeks

  July

  Changing the procedures for calculating 1998 performance tables to include excluded pupils

  10 weeks

  Home-schools agreements—Draft guidance for schools and LEAs

  10 weeks

  Target setting for reducing exclusions and unauthorised absence

  10 weeks

  Promoting disabled people's rights: Creating a disability rights commission fit for the 21st Century

  12 weeks

  Review of TECs: TECs—Meeting the challenge of the millennium

  11 weeks

  84
  A review will be undertaken of accessibility to facilities used for the Single Work Focused Gateway interviews so that the best possible service can be made available to disabled clients.

  Secondary Education (Reorganisation Costs)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to estimate the costs of re-organising secondary education in any area which votes to end selection. [67412]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None. As I have explained in my replies to previous questions on the subject of reorganisation which may result from parents voting in favour of ending selection, the law only requires the admissions authorities of the grammar schools involved to change their admission arrangements. Any other changes would be a matter for decision at local level.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funds are available in his Department's budget for helping local education authorities faced with extra costs as a result of secondary school re-organisation following any ballot which ends selective education. [66232]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  If parents choose to trigger a ballot and vote in favour of removing selection, the law would only require the admissions authorities of the grammar schools involved to change their admission arrangements. Any other changes would be a matter for decision at local level. If schools and local education authorities agreed other changes, they would plan them within the resources available.

  School Consultation Exercise
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 351, if he will list the 27 consultation documents issued by his Department in 1998 for which a response time of 10 weeks or more was given. [67579]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The consultation documents and response times were as follows:
  85

  Month

  Consultation Document

  Response Time

  Locally agreed syllabuses for religious education: Draft order

  15 weeks

  Targets for reducing exclusion and unauthorised absence

  10 weeks

  New requirements to make goods and facilities and services more accessible to disabled people

  10 weeks

  October

  Ingredients for success: a consultation paper on nutritional standards for school lunches

  12 weeks

  Draft regulations under Section 494 of the Education Act 1996

  10 weeks

  School and business—Sustaining partnerships

  10 weeks

  December

  Draft regulations on the statutory arrangements for induction

  10 weeks

  Teachers: Meetings the challenge of change (green paper) + summary and questionnaire

  16 weeks

  New Opportunities Fund (ICT Training)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) by what date the CD Rom being prepared for the Teacher Training Agency by ICL to assist in the self-assessment procedure for bids for the New Opportunities Fund moneys for information and communications technology skills training will be available to schools; [67388]

  (2) by what date the self-assessment materials required by schools to bid for the New Opportunities Fund moneys for information and communications technology skills training will be available to them. [67389]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Work carried out in-house by the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) will ensure that packs of printed materials are available to schools prior to Easter 1999. These packs will contain the expected outcomes of the New Opportunities Fund training, case studies by subject and phase to exemplify key factors for teachers in deciding when and how to use Information and Communications Technologies effectively, pro-formas for recording training needs, and guidance on the use of materials. These materials, together with those for school librarians, will also be available in electronic format through the National Grid for Learning.

  This first phase is to be extended in scope through the provision of further case studies in an interactive CD-ROM format, for which initial work has been undertaken by ICL. The TTA is now continuing the development and production in time to despatch the CD-ROM to schools in the summer term, for use during the training programme.

  Redundancies (K Shoes)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance his Department will make available to those made redundant by K Shoes in Kendal in the first quarter of 1999. [67013]

  Mr. Mudie
  Officials from the Employment Service will be visiting the factory every week to answer questions and offer Jobsearch advice. Additionally, the local Jobcentre are arranging to display job vacancies within the factory.

  The redundancy has been declared as 'Large Scale' which means that employees who are being made redundant will have preferential access onto Employment Service and Enterprise Cumbria's (formerly the TEC) programmes.

  Enterprise Cumbria in conjunction with Cumbria Careers are working closely with the company and have offered them a comprehensive package of assistance, including careers counselling and a resident training Adviser.

  Glasgow Employment Zone
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the budget of the Glasgow Employment Zone; and if he will make a statement. [67642]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employment Service is negotiating with Glasgow Employment Zone to determine the funds required for the Zone's delivery plan proposals for 1999–2000.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total budget for the Glasgow Employment Zone; how much funding is received from the European social fund; and if he will make a statement. [67641]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The ES contribution to the Glasgow Employment Zone is based on the number of long-term unemployed people participants it attracts. The 1998–99 contract was re-negotiated in November and is currently valued at £801,012 for 900 participants. The Zone was awarded £391,000 from the European Social Fund towards its 1998 costs. Overall expenditure in 1998 is likely to be less than anticipated; this will correspondingly reduce the amount of European Social Fund grant.

  Labour and Social Affairs Ministers Meeting
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is on the agenda for the Council meeting of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs from 4 to 6 February; and which Minister will be attending. [67411]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The informal meeting of EU Labour Minister will focus on two topics. The first will be the German presidency plans in employment and social affairs. The second will be the partnership between economic and monetary union and employment.

  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and I expect to attend the meeting.

  Education Action Zones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 352, if he will break down the money so far received by the 25 education action zones, into the sums paid in (a) cash and (b) kind for each education action zone. [67635]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A detailed breakdown will be provided in the audited financial statements which each zone is required to provide by the end of the year.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 97, if he will list the assessments of associated costs for each of proposed functions of the Disability Rights Commission. [67621]

  Ms Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 352.

  Early Education (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the participation rate of three-year-olds in early education in Portsmouth. [67226]

  Ms Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. There were 459 three year olds in maintained nursery and primary schools in the Portsmouth Local Education Authority area in January 1998. In addition, the Government are supporting a significant national expansion of free places for three year olds in the maintained, voluntary and private sectors from 1999–2000.

  Supply Teachers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of supply teachers employed within each local education authority at the latest date for which information is available. [65909]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is in the table.

  Occasional teachers1 by local education authority in England January 1997 and 1998

  Local Education Authority

  1998

  City of London

  0

  Camden

  88

  Greenwich

  71

  Hackney

  76

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  89

  Islington

  58

  Kensington & Chelsea

  74

  Lambeth

  31

  Lewisham

  97

  Southwark

  132

  Tower Hamlets

  112

  Wandsworth

  69

  City of Westminster

  70

  Barking

  96

  Barnet

  64

  Bexley

  62

  Brent

  56

  Bromley

  39

  Croydon

  101

  Ealing

  59

  Enfield

  87

  Haringey

  119

  Harrow

  39

  Havering

  67

  Hillingdon

  31

  Hounslow

  61

  Kingston

  39

  Merton

  70

  Newham

  157

  Redbridge

  38

  Richmond

  24

  Sutton

  44

  Waltham Forest

  47

  Birmingham

  463

  Coventry

  82

  Dudley

  131

  88

  Occasional teachers1 by local education authority in England January 1997 and 1998

  Local Education Authority

  1998

  Sandwell

  65

  Solihull

  79

  Walsall

  62

  Wolverhampton

  72

  Knowsley

  55

  Liverpool

  130

  St. Helens

  62

  Sefton

  90

  Wirral

  89

  Bolton

  102

  Bury

  54

  Manchester

  143

  Oldham

  43

  Rochdale

  92

  Salford

  110

  Stockport

  125

  Tameside

  29

  Trafford

  59

  Wigan

  184

  Barnsley

  99

  Doncaster

  74

  Rotherham

  98

  Sheffield

  152

  Bradford

  116

  Calderdale

  52

  Kirklees

  112

  Leeds

  164

  Wakefield

  94

  Gateshead

  56

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  72

  North Tyneside

  61

  South Tyneside

  29

  Sunderland

  105

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Bath & North East Somerset

  28

  City of Bristol

  155

  North Somerset

  77

  South Gloucestershire

  66

  Hartlepool

  28

  Middlesborough

  42

  Redcar and Cleveland

  51

  Stockton on Tees

  70

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

  91

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  89

  North East Lincolnshire

  69

  North Lincolnshire

  87

  North Yorkshire

  126

  York

  80

  Bedfordshire

  206

  Luton

  83

  Bedfordshire

  289

  Buckinghamshire

  37

  Milton Keynes

  38

  Buckinghamshire

  75

  Derbyshire

  189

  Derby

  51

  Derbyshire

  240

  Dorset

  2

  Poole

  33

  Bournemouth

  40

  Dorset

  75

  Durham

  217

  Darlington

  13

  Durham

  230

  East Sussex

  95

  Brighton & Hove

  43

  East Sussex

  138

  Hampshire

  293

  Portsmouth

  36

  Southampton

  48

  Hampshire

  377

  Leicstershire

  82

  89

  Occasional teachers1 by local education authority in England January 1997 and 1998

  Local Education Authority

  1998

  Leicester City

  68

  Rutland

  5

  Leicestershire

  155

  Staffordshire

  253

  Stoke

  72

  Staffordshire

  325

  Wiltshire

  68

  Swindon

  37

  Wiltshire

  105

  Berkshire

  126

  Cambridgeshire

  124

  Cheshire

  151

  Cornwall

  126

  Cumbria

  133

  Devon

  247

  Essex

  236

  Gloucestershire

  78

  Hereford & Worcester

  141

  Hertfordshire

  93

  Isle of Wight

  38

  Kent

  129

  Lancashire

  513

  Lincolnshire

  137

  Norfolk

  156

  Northamptonshire

  241

  Northumberland

  138

  Nottinghamshire

  454

  Oxfordshire

  112

  Shropshire

  129

  Somerset

  137

  Suffolk

  229

  Surrey

  134

  Warwickshire

  106

  West Sussex

  101

  Total

  13,149

  1 Occasional teachers are employed on a day to day or short term contract (less than one month) in response to a specific vacancy or short term absence. Figures relate to teachers employed for the whole of the third Thursday in January of each year.

  Notes:

  1. The data are for maintained nursery, primary, secondary, special schools, Pupil Referral Units and education otherwise than in schools.

  2. By way of comparison, in 1997, there were 13,611 such teachers employed by LEAs.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he proposes to make an announcement on the pilot areas for the education maintenance allowance. [66231]

  Mr. Mudie
  We expect to announce the Education Maintenance Allowance Pilot areas within the next month.

  Nannies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what factors underlay the decision to change the rules governing the regulation of nanny agencies; [66931]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the Better Regulation Task Force's report into the regulation of nannies. [66933]
  90
  Ms Hodge
  More than 650 responses to the consultation paper on the regulation of early education and day care were considered in developing the proposals relating to nannies, including those advocating a national register. The Government concluded, like the Better Regulation Task Force, that a register would be bureaucratic and unworkable and would raise false expectations among parents. Rather, the Government propose to work with the industry to establish new, higher standards for nanny agencies which are clear to parents, supported by guidance to all parents on employing child carers in the home.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sea Anglers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the occasions when sea anglers have been prohibited from landing fish consequent upon the need to close fisheries to vessels under 10m in length; [67150]

  (2) when his Department reclassified landings by sea anglers from being part of the natural mortality of fish to being part of the quota; and if he will make a statement; [67151]

  (3) which EU regulation requires him to take account of landings made by sea anglers for quota management purposes. [67149]

  Mr. Morley
  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3760/92 of 20 December 1992, establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, requires Member States to ensure that non-commercial activities do not jeopardise the conservation and management of resources covered by the common fisheries policy. The annual EU Council regulations, laying down total allowable catches and quotas for the coming year, make no exemption for landings by vessels fishing for pleasure.

  Fisheries closures orders have applied to sea angling since the introduction of the current quota management arrangements in the mid-1980s. The table lists the closures for 1998 which have applied to both commercial vessels of 10m and under in overall length and to vessels fishing for pleasure. Most of these closures would have had little, if any, impact on recreational sea angling because of the stocks involved or the timing of the closure.

  Date

  North Sea sole

  14 January-21 April

  Area VIIhjk plaice, West of Scotland sole, Area VIIhjk sole, Norway others

  14 January-31 December

  Area VII b-k cod

  12 May-6 September

  Area VIIe sole

  7 September-31 December

  North Sea herring

  15 December-31 December

  West Coast mackerel

  18 December-31 December

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if agricultural crops
  91
  engineered to contain biopesticides will be regulated as foods or pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [66013]

  Mr. Rooker
  Agricultural crops that have been genetically modified to contain biopesticides are regulated under EC Directive (90/220) on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment rather than under pesticides legislation. Foods derived from such crops are regulated under the EC Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulation (258/97). The aim of both these sets of regulations is to ensure that all crops that have been modified to improve insect resistance, and their products, have been thoroughly assessed for environmental and food safety before being allowed onto the market. In this respect they provide comparable environmental and consumer protection to the legislation on pesticides.

  BSE
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many confirmed BSE cases there were in each year between 1988 and 1998 in(a) Eire, (b) Portugal and (c) Switzerland. [66561]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following table shows by calendar year the number of confirmed cases of BSE in Eire, Portugal and Switzerland.

  Number of confirmed BSE cases per year

  Year

  Eire1

  Portugal1

  Switzerland2

  1988

  0

  0

  —

  1989

  0

  0

  —

  1990

  11

  0

  1

  1991

  17

  0

  9

  1992

  18

  0

  15

  1993

  16

  1

  29

  1994

  19

  7

  63

  1995

  16

  14

  68

  1996

  73

  29

  45

  1997

  77

  30

  38

  19983

  79

  104

  14

  1 Data obtained from The Commission, Directorate-General VI 18/1/99.

  2 Based on data provided by the British Embassy, Berne.

  3 Date of last confirmation: Eire 23 December 1998, Portugal 31 December 1998, Switzerland 10 December 1998.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experiments have shown the presence of BSE infectivity in cattle feed. [66506]

  Mr. Rooker
  None. Existing methods for the surveillance of compliance with the statutory feed bans detect the presence of mammalian proteins rather than infectivity. The detection of infectivity would require inoculation of laboratory animals on a very large scale without guaranteeing a satisfactory outcome.

  However, experiments have shown that if material which is rendered to produce meat and bone meal is artificially infected with either BSE or scrapie containing brain before rendering, detectable levels of infectivity can be found in the meat and bone meal resulting from the rendering processes which were in use in the UK in the late 1980s. Until July 1988, meat and bone meal was a permitted constituent of feed for cattle and sheep.
  92
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the average figures for compensation paid to farmers for cattle each year between 1988 and 1998 that were(a) reported as suspect BSE cases and not subsequently confirmed as such, and (b) reported as suspect BSE cases and subsequently confirmed as such. [66505]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following table shows by calendar year the average compensation rates paid to farmers for animals slaughtered as BSE suspects:

  £

  Year

  Average compensation paid if BSE confirmed

  Average compensation paid if BSE not confirmed

  1988

  205.27

  410.54

  1989

  314.61

  629.22

  1990

  521.62

  692.20

  1991

  543.84

  679.81

  1992

  652.42

  815.52

  1993

  889.89

  1,112.37

  1994

  848.87

  1,061.09

  1995

  618.78

  773.47

  1996

  650.90

  813.63

  1997

  578.15

  722.68

  1998

  653.55

  816.94

  These figures have been calculated by dividing the total expenditure in a calendar year by the number of animals slaughtered as BSE suspects which were placed under restriction in that year. Because of the delay in making payments following slaughter and confirmation of the disease status of an animal, this calculation does not give a true average payment for the year.

  A true average of individual payments could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the procedures used in the current survey into sheep brains as discussed by SEAC on 9 November 1998; and if he will list how many have(a) been tested to date and (b) found to be diseased due to (i) sheep scrapie or (ii) BSE-like illness. [66502]

  Mr. Rooker
  In May 1997, SEAC recommended an abattoir survey of sheeps' brains to determine the likely exposure of the human population to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in sheep submitted for slaughter. Sampling of material took place between August 1997 and August 1998 from almost 3,000 sheep selected at random from approximately 130 abattoirs throughout Great Britain. Tests have been carried out using histological, scrapie associated fibril (SAF), and immunocytochemical examinations. The preliminary findings are inconclusive with no cases of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy definitely confirmed. SEAC received a preliminary report in November 1998 but have not yet scheduled a substantive discussion on it. Further examination of brains and tonsils collected are expected to commence shortly. These tests will not differentiate whether the brains from the abattoir survey will have BSE or scrapie.
  93
  Currently, the only way of definitively differentiating BSE from scrapie involves testing suspect material in a panel of specially bred mice and observing the characteristics of any disease that develops. It takes 1–2 years for them to succumb to a disease, if they are incubating BSE, and longer if they are not. Two research projects are underway to examine clinical scrapie cases using this method. No cases of BSE have been found in any of the sheep from the national flock tested so far in this assay.

  At their meeting on 9 November, SEAC discussed a draft report from their sheep sub-group which had been looking at research and surveillance for TSEs in sheep. A further draft is being prepared by the sub-group. It is expected that the final report will indicate the priority of recommendations for further work. This was explained by the Chairman of SEAC, Professor Sir John Pattison, at a press conference on 30 November 1998 when the public summary of the November meeting was issued.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the changes in(a) compensation levels, (b) legal requirements and (c) administrative procedures in the reporting and confirmation of sheep scrapie in the last 10 years. [66501]

  Mr. Rooker
  (a) The rates since the payment of compensation was introduced in July 1998 are:

  £

  July 1998

  24.51

  August 1998

  25.34

  September 1998

  23.87

  October 1998

  19.54

  November 1998

  15.53

  December 1998

  15.41

  January 1999

  12.72

  The compensation rate is equal to the average cull ewe price collected the calendar month two months before actual slaughter. It is a variable figure calculated monthly using prices collected from the Meat and Livestock Commission Weekly Market Survey. If an animal is clinically diagnosed by a Veterinary Officer as affected by scrapie, but this cannot be confirmed by laboratory diagnosis, owners may then be eligible to receive a greater payment, not exceeding £400, subject to documentary evidence of the animal's value.

  (b) Scrapie was made a notifiable disease in the EC on 1 January 1993 by Council Directive 91/68 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals. This was implemented by The Specified Diseases (Notification) Order 1991, as amended by The Specified Diseases (Notification and Slaughter) Order 1992. Surveillance requirements including the compulsory slaughter of suspect animals were laid down in Commission Decision 98/272. With effect from 29 July 1998 requirements for the compulsory slaughter of suspect
  94
  animals, veterinary investigations, and the payment of compensation respectively, were laid down in the following SIs:

  The Sheep and Goats Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1998 (SI 1998/1645);

  The Sheep and Goats Spongiform Encephalopathy Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1646);

  The Sheep and Goats Spongiform Encephalopathy (Compensation) Order 1998 (SI 1998/1647).

  (c) Since 1 January 1993 owners of animals suspected of having scrapie have been required to notify the relevant Agriculture Department. If a clinical diagnosis of scrapie was made by a veterinary officer a movement restriction notice was served to prevent the movement of the suspect animal off the premises. Once the animal had died, or was slaughtered with the owner's agreement, the head was submitted to a veterinary investigation centre (VIC) for laboratory confirmation of scrapie. This was on the basis of examination of the brain material either by histological examination or by electron microscopy examination for scrapie associated fibrils at the Veterinary Laboratory Agency.

  Although scrapie has been notifiable since 1993, not all cases were submitted for laboratory confirmation. From 1 January 1993 to 3 July 1996, in general, only the first case reported and subsequently confirmed on a holding in a 2 year period was sent for laboratory examination. Second and subsequent diagnoses were made on clinical grounds only. There were 75 of these between 1993 and 1996. These have been included in statistics as confirmed cases.

  With the implementation of above mentioned SIs the slaughter of animals suspected of being clinically affected by scrapie is now compulsory. All suspect animals are slaughtered at a VIC (unless the animal is unfit to travel from the farm) who remove the tissues required for disease confirmation, and arrange for the carcase to be incinerated. Compensation is payable at the time of slaughter. A veterinary officer will complete an epidemiological investigation on farm on confirmation of disease on new premises.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reported and confirmed cases of sheep scrapie there were in the United Kingdom in each year from 1989 to 1998. [66500]

  Mr. Rooker
  Scrapie was made a notifiable disease in Great Britain on 1 January 1993 and in Northern Ireland on 31 December 1992.

  The number of cases notified since 1993 is given in the following table for Great Britain only. Equivalent data is not available for Northern Ireland.

  Year

  Cases reported

  1993

  494

  1994

  327

  1995

  311

  1996

  549

  1997

  595

  1998

  1602

  1 1998 data is provisional—data as at 13.1.99

  95
  Before 1993, notification was voluntary and of those reported, only confirmed cases were recorded. Cases confirmed by laboratory analysis for whole period 1989 to 1998 are given in the following table:

  Year

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Total UK

  1989

  252

  7

  259

  1990

  347

  8

  355

  1991

  906

  0

  906

  1992

  595

  5

  600

  1993

  306

  4

  310

  1994

  210

  5

  215

  1995

  232

  2

  234

  1996

  453

  8

  461

  1997

  508

  1

  509

  1998

  1417

  1

  1418

  1 1998 data is provisional—data as at 13.1.99

  Biomass Industry
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department is giving to the development of a United Kingdom biomass industry; and if he will make a statement. [66620]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry, through the Alternative Crops Unit, promotes alternative crops including biomass at agricultural shows and farmer workshops and through a dedicated Website. In 1998 we secured, at the June Agriculture Council, an increase in the ceiling for the grant which can be paid to establish biomass crops, and the Forestry Commission immediately implemented this for a short-rotation coppice near the UK's first biomass-fuelled power station. Expenditure on strategic research and development totalled around £400,000. Future development of biomass crops depends on support to make them competitive with more traditional agricultural activities. This will depend on the outcome of Agenda 2000 and on finding the necessary resources.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions have been made for the disposal of List I and List II substances under the Groundwater Regulations 1998 when it is necessary to use them at short notice due to animal welfare considerations or other unforeseen circumstances. [66587]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]I have been asked to reply.

  The requirements for prior authorisation for disposals to land (subject to the exemptions specified) are of universal application under the Groundwater Regulations 1998. It would therefore be prudent for those who may need to undertake disposal at short notice to apply in advance for appropriate authorisation. Under transitional arrangements applications for authorisations may be made now, prior to the Regulations coming into force.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on responsibility under the Groundwater Regulations 1998 for obtaining the appropriate authorisations under the new legislation, with particular regard to the disposal of spent sheep dip. [66594]
  96
  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]I have been asked to reply.

  Under the Groundwater Regulations 1998 it is the discharger who requires authorisation for a discharge. This is consistent with the Water Resources Act 1991, under which it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit any polluting matter to enter controlled waters, including groundwater—other than in accordance with a consent. Where the discharger and the landowner are not the same person, it will clearly be necessary for each to be aware of any authorisation and their consequent obligations.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what refund provisions there will be under the Groundwater Regulations 1998 for farmers who pay for an authorisation application on the basis of Environment Agency advice which is subsequently deemed unnecessary once the full guidance has been developed. [66588]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]I have been asked to reply.

  In line with the Environment Act 1995, Regulation 16 of the Groundwater Regulations 1998 provides for the Environment Agency to recover the costs of applications and prior investigations through a charging scheme. The Agency is responsible for the day to day operation of the charging scheme, and have indicated that where an application is made and the disposal is found to fall outside the scope of the Regulations, then the application fee will be refunded.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions have been made under the Groundwater Regulations 1998 for the disposal of List I and List II substances in large areas of exposed aquifers, with particular reference to the Cotswolds. [66586]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 19 January 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Goundwater Regulations 1998 apply throughout Scotland, England and Wales. It is not the intention of the Environment Agency in England and Wales and SEPA in Scotland to classify large areas of exposed aquifers, such as the Cotswolds, as unsuitable for disposal. However it is for these agencies to determine individual applications in the light of prior investigation of proposed disposal sites. Where authorisations cannot be granted it will be necessary for the applicant to identify alternative and acceptable disposal sites, alternative means of disposal or alternative methods of treatment for sheep which do not require disposals of waste products.

HEALTH

  Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has issued on the recognition of the symptoms of potential attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in(a) children and (b) adults. [64909]

  Mr. Hutton
  The issue of clinical guidance on mental health problems is primarily a matter for the relevant professional bodies. However in relation to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children the
  97
  Department has collaborated with professional and other groups seeking to raise general levels of awareness of ADHD and related disorders in order to facilitate better diagnosis and treatment. We have worked in this way with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the production of factsheets on child mental health problems including attention deficit disorders, with representatives of general practitioners on similar guidance for general practitioners and with the voluntary group 'Young Minds' on advice for schools.

  We support the initiative being taken by the Royal College of Psychiatrists Research Unit to produce evidence based briefing on the use of stimulant medication in ADHD. This will be published shortly.

  The recognition of ADHD in adults is very recent in the United Kingdom. As far as we are aware, no clinical guidelines have yet been produced.

  Health Services Accreditation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the next meeting of the Board of Health Services Accreditation to take place. [65495]

  Mr. Denham
  The Health Services Accreditation advisory board is still in place but there are currently no meetings scheduled. The board will meet when the health authority has made its final decision on Health Service Accreditation's future.

  Older People
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the findings of the Health Advisory Service 2000 report, "Not Because They Are Old", will be reflected in the development of improvement programmes. [65325]

  Mr. Denham
  A Health Service Circular (HSC1998/220) issued in November 1998 to all chief executives of health authorities and National Health Service trusts, along with a copy of the report "Not Because They Are Old" required chief executives of health authorities, in partnership with colleagues in NHS

  Membership of Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation

  Name

  Organisation

  Chair

  Mr. S. Day

  Regional Director, NHS Executive, West Midlands

  Members

  Mr. I. Carruthers

  Chief Executive, Dorset Health Authority

  Dr. M. D'Souza

  General Practitioner (National Association of Primary Care)

  Dr. L. Davies

  Regional Director of Public Health, NHS Executive, Trent

  Professor I. Diamond

  Dean of Social Sciences, University of Southampton

  Mr. D. Edmundson

  Chief Executive, North West Lancashire Health Authority

  Mr. K. Ford

  Chief Executive, Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  Dr. J. Gilley

  General Practitioner (British Medical Association)

  Professor H. Glennerster

  Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics

  Mr. M. A. Harris

  NHS Executive, Finance

  Dr. C. Heath

  General Practitioner (National Association of Primary Care)

  Professor J. Higgins

  Chair, Manchester Health Authority

  Mr. C. Howgrave-Graham

  Chief Executive, Coventry Health Authority

  Mr. J. Hurst

  NHS Executive, Economist

  Dr. R. Hussey

  Director of Public Health, Liverpool Health Authority

  Mr. J. H. James

  Chief Executive, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority

  Mr. R. Jeavons

  Chief Executive, Lincolnshire Health Authority

  98
  trusts and social services, to ensure that the findings of the report are considered when preparing Joint Investment Plans for older people.

  These Joint Investment Plans will be included in local Health Improvement Programmes which will include both national and local priorities.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he expects the findings of the Health Advisory Service 2000 report, "Not Because They are Old", are required to be reflected in service agreements for commissioning acute hospital services. [65321]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 January 1999]Long-term service agreements will be a key means of delivering the local Health improvement programmes. Health improvement programmes becoming effective from April 1999 will include joint investment plans for services for older people which will consider the findings of the "Not Because They Are Old" report.

  Agency Nurses
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish data on the number of agency nurses currently employed, in relation to full-time establishments in(a) each hospital trust and (b) each health authority and region. [66052]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Resource Allocation Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the Committee which determined the weighted capitation formula, indicating in each case the member's employer and whom the member represents. [66101]

  Mr. Denham
  The committee which gives advice to Ministers on these issues is the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. The list gives the current membership and shows either their National Health Service or other employer, or the organisation they represent. Members from health service bodies are invited to serve the committee in a personal capacity and not as representatives of their employer.
  99

  Membership of Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation

  Name

  Organisation

  Professor Sir B. Jarman

  Emeritus Professor of the Department of General Practice, Imperial College of Medicine

  Professor K. Judge

  Professor of Social Policy, Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent

  Ms R. MacDonald

  Programme Director, Avon Health Authority

  Mr. A. Meekings

  Director of Finance and Performance, NHS Executive, South East

  Professor P. C. Smith

  Director of the Health Economics Programme, Centre for Health Economics, University of York

  Mr. M. Swindells

  Director of Clinical Services, Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospital NHS Trust

  Dr. A. Willis

  General Practitioner (NHS Primary Care Group Alliance)

  Royal London Hospital Trust
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of price increases which the Royal London Hospital Trust has charged health authorities using its services(a) last year and (b) in the current year; what is the proposed increase for next year; what measures it is taking to achieve its three per cent. efficiency savings target; and if he will make a statement. [66100]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the level of service agreements between individual National Health Service trusts and health authorities is not routinely collected by the NHS Executive. A national schedule of reference costs, published on 2 November 1998, contains information on hospital costs for 1997–98 and is available in the Library. Information on 1998–99 costs will be available in June 1999.

  The NHS as a whole is expected to achieve an overall 3 per cent. efficiency improvement in 1999–2000. Details of measures taken by individual NHS trusts will be available from NHS trusts themselves.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets for the reduction of sickness absence rates have been set for NHS trusts in England for the period to(a) 2001 and (b) 2003; and what account was taken in setting these targets of trusts' individual current sickness absence rates. [65911]

  Mr. Denham
  Targets for reductions of sickness absence rates for National Health Service trusts have been set at 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003.

  These targets reflect those defined by the Cabinet Office for the public sector as a whole, and therefore do not take into account individual NHS sickness absence rates.

  Physiotherapy (Recruitment)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to tackle recruitment problems in physiotherapy. [66039]

  Mr. Denham
  We are employing a twin track approach to enable the National Health Service to secure the physiotherapists it needs by ensuring that training levels are sufficient to get a better match between supply and demand and by investing in initiatives to improve the recruitment, retention and return to practice of qualified staff, including more supportive and family-friendly ways of working.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the average pay levels for each nursing grade from 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement; [66048]

  (2) if he will list the percentage pay increases to nurses for each year from 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement. [66047]

  Mr. Denham
  Estimated total annual average earnings for nursing staff by grade, taken from the Department's August 1997 earnings survey, are shown in the table. Similar information for earlier years is not available centrally, but advance letters issued to the National Health Service containing information about the national rates of pay for nursing staff since 1992 have been placed in the Library. These advance letters also give details of the percentage increases in the national rates of pay for nursing staff since 1992.

  National Health Service hospital and community health services nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff: total annual average earnings by grade; England

  £ per annum

  Grade

  August 1997

  December 19981

  A

  11,200

  11,800

  B

  12,500

  13,100

  C

  14,500

  15,200

  D

  15,600

  16,400

  E

  18,200

  19,100

  F

  20,800

  21,900

  G

  22,300

  23,500

  H

  23,900

  25,100

  I

  26,200

  27.500

  1 Figures for December 1998 are extrapolated from figures for August 1997. They assume no change in the number of staff on each grade or incremental point, and incorporate all parts of the 1998–99 pay settlement for nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff.

  Notes:

  It is not possible to show annual percentage changes because the available figures do not cover a discrete 12 month period. Between August 1997 and December 1998 components of the 1997–98 and 1998–99 national pay settlements for nursing staff would have been implemented.

  Total annual average pay was estimated across all incremental points for each grade.

  Data are rounded to the nearest £100.

  Source:

  Department of Health's August 1997 NHS Earnings Survey

  Hospital Bed Statistics
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of(a) general and (b) acute NHS hospital beds (i) nationally and (ii) in Shropshire for each year from 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement. [66050]
  101
  Mr. Denham
  Bed availability data are collected by National Health Service trusts. The information provided in Table 2 is an aggregate of the figures for all NHS trusts to reflect the 1997–98 structure of the Shropshire Health Authority geographic area.

  Table 1: Average daily number of available beds open overnight (i.e. 24 hours), 1991–92 to 1997–98, England

  Year

  Acute1

  General2 and acute

  Total3

  1991–92

  115,140

  157,247

  242,677

  1992–93

  112,862

  153,208

  232,201

  1993–94

  109,713

  147,153

  219,476

  1994–95

  108,008

  144,803

  211,812

  1995–96

  108,296

  142,624

  206,136

  1996–97

  108,869

  140,515

  198,848

  1997–98

  107,807

  138,047

  193,625

  Table 2: Average daily number of available beds open overnight (i.e. 24 hours), 1991–92 to 1997–98, Shropshire Health Authority

  year

  Acute1

  General2and acute

  Total3

  1991–92

  1,076

  1,216

  1,709

  1992–93

  978

  1,092

  1,565

  1993–94

  859

  1,096

  1,510

  1994–95

  872

  1,110

  1,500

  1995–96

  817

  1,084

  1,471

  1996–97

  843

  1,117

  1,515

  1997–98

  791

  1,059

  1,398

  1 Since 1996–97, acute figures have included paediatric intensive care beds.

  2 General and acute is defined as acute plus geriatric.

  3 Total figures are for all specialities excluding neonatal cots in maternity wards.

  Source:

  Department of Health publications "Bed availability and occupancy for England" and "Bed availability for England"

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rules or guidance his Department has to govern the(a) formal and (b) informal interaction between his civil servants and commercial lobbyists. [66201]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by 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.

  The guidance that was referred to in the response has since been fully adopted by the Department and its agencies.

  Hospital Re-admissions
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the first and second quarter figures for 1998–99 for the number of patients aged(a) under 20, (b) 20 to 59 and (c) 59 to 74 years who were readmitted to hospital as an emergency within 28 days of discharge. [66466]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested. We will be publishing clinical indicators shortly which will include information on emergency re-admissions which occur within 28 days of hospital discharge. Data are being compiled using a complex 102
  process which links different hospital episodes for the same patient and will be available for the financial years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of nurse training places for each year from 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement. [66046]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Numbers of National Health Service funded pre-registration nurse training commissions 1992–93–1998–99

  Year

  Project 2000/traditional commissions

  Degree commissions

  Total commissions (Project 2000/traditional and degree)

  1992–93

  14,883

  190

  15,073

  1993–94

  12,439

  199

  12,623

  1994–95

  10,594

  255

  10,849

  1995–96

  11,495

  256

  11,751

  1996–97

  13,011

  297

  13,308

  1997–98

  14,429

  297

  14,726

  1998–991

  15,523

  21,314

  16,837

  1 1998–99 data is forecast and subject to change.

  2 The increase in degree commissions in 1998–99 compared to 1997–98 is primarily due to the transfer of funding and responsibility for degree programmes from DfEE to Department of Health from September 1998.

  Notes:

  1. The training activity is funded through the Non-Medical Education and Training levy. It excludes training activity funded through Department for Education and Employment/other means.

  2. In addition to the training activity there are pre-registration midwifery training commissions. However, this is not included here because we do not have comparable data for each year.

  Cosmetic Dentistry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that dentists engaging in cosmetic dentistry are skilled in the relevant techniques. [65788]

  Mr. Denham
  We are satisfied that the present undergraduate curriculum covers cosmetic dentistry adequately and that there are sufficient training opportunities for qualified dentists to update their skills. If my hon. Friend knows of a particular problem, we would be happy to investigate.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he anticipates the Food Standards Agency will begin giving guidance on health and diet. [66575]

  Ms Jowell
  We will be publishing a draft Bill for consultation later this month. If legislative time permits, we propose to introduce a revised Bill during the current Parliamentary session. If Parliament's assent is received quickly, we hope that the agency will begin work in 2000.

  Private Hospital Beds
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the proportion of all private beds in use at any specific time. [66389]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1996–97, the latest figures for which information is available, 50.4 per cent. of beds in private hospitals and clinics in England registered under Section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 were occupied at the time of inspection. Information on occupancy of private beds in National Health Service hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) private hospitals there are in England and Wales, (b) private beds there are in these hospitals and (c) private beds there are in NHS hospitals in England and Wales. [66388]

  Ms Jowell
  At 31 March 1998 there were 396 private hospitals and clinics in England with a total of 11,089 registered beds. Information on the number of private beds in NHS hospitals is not currently collected centrally.

  The figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales.

  HIV/AIDS Steering Group
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the Steering Group convened to develop the HIV/AIDS strategy. [66577]

  Ms Jowell
  The membership of the steering group to develop the HIV/AIDS Strategy for England is currently under consideration and will be announced in the near future.

  Eye Tests
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the take-up by pensioners in Doncaster, Central of free eye tests after their introduction; and if he will make a statement. [66563]

  Mr. Denham
  As it is difficult to predict the rate of take-up, an estimate for such a relatively small population would not be meaningful. Nationally, we estimate that, from 1 April 1999, some 6 million to 7 million more people aged 60 and over will become eligible for free National Health Service sight tests and, in 1999–2000, there will be between 2 and 3 million more NHS tests.

  ENT Services (West Pennines)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce his decision on the future of ear, nose and throat services in the West Pennine Health Authority area. [66615]

  Investing in dentistry requests by health authority

  Health authority

  Number of applications submitted

  Number of applications approved

  Gross funding awarded £

  Gross funding requested £

  Avon

  12

  4

  81,000

  428,100

  Barnet

  6

  —

  —

  214,900

  Barnsley

  5

  3

  72,900

  124,200

  Bedfordshire

  2

  2

  30,000

  30,000

  Berkshire

  12

  5

  85,000

  385,000

  Bexley and Greenwich

  3

  —

  —

  396,000

  104
  Mr. Denham
  We hope to be able to make a decision on this issue in the near future after we have had the opportunity to consider all of the relevant factors.

  Dental Services
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the budget and (b) the outturn for general dental services for England for the financial year 1997–98. [66654]

  Mr. Denham
  General dental services (GDS) is not cash limited, so there is no set annual budget. The original vote provision and final expenditure in the GDS in England is shown in the table.

  General dental service: 1997–98 expenditure England

  £ million

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  Provision made in main

  Estimate

  1,405.8

  1,021.5

  Outturn

  1,349.3

  959.1

  Gross expenditure includes all fees and allowances payable to general dental practitioners, which cover their income and practice expenses, together with supplementary cost such as employers' superannuation contributions, payments of salaried dentists who provide GDS care in certain localities, and refunds to patients who incorrectly paid dental charges. Net expenditure shows costs after taking into account all dental charges collected from patients.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each health authority area(a) the number of applications received and (b) the gross funding awarded under Investing in Dentistry; and if he will make a statement; [66658]

  (2) how much money has been allocated to Investing in Dentistry up to 31 December; which health authority areas applied for such funds; how much each has bid for; and how many applications were (a) received and (b) successful in each health authority area. [66659]

  Mr. Denham
  Since the "Investing in Dentistry" initiative was announced in September 1987, 614 applications have been received and grants totalling nearly £7 million have been approved. The table gives details of the health authorities who submitted "Investing in Dentistry" funding requests to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State in 1997–98 and 1998–99, the number of applications submitted, the gross amount of funding requested, the number of applications approved and gross funding awarded.
  105

  Investing in dentistry requests by health authority

  Health authority

  Number of applications submitted

  Number of applications approved

  Gross funding awarded £

  Gross funding requested £

  Birmingham

  2

  1

  57,000

  76,700

  Bradford

  4

  1

  52,700

  354,300

  Bury and Rochdale

  2

  —

  —

  33,100

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  4

  —

  —

  240,700

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  5

  4

  127,400

  396,400

  Camden and Islington

  2

  —

  —

  100,000

  City and East London

  8

  5

  164,000

  290,800

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  13

  7

  251,800

  990,600

  County Durham

  10

  3

  110,000

  332,900

  Coventry

  1

  —

  —

  49,000

  Doncaster

  5

  2

  32,900

  119,400

  Dorset

  5

  2

  29,500

  101,600

  Dudley

  1

  —

  —

  39,500

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  9

  6

  112,600

  155,000

  East Kent

  4

  —

  —

  518,400

  East Lancashire

  15

  1

  44,000

  605,600

  East Norfolk

  6

  3

  96,000

  453,800

  East Riding

  13

  6

  184,500

  423,000

  East Sussex

  3

  —

  —

  60,000

  Enfield and Haringay

  8

  —

  —

  197,000

  Gloucestershire

  20

  10

  172,000

  645,800

  Herefordshire

  2

  2

  50,000

  60,000

  Isle of Wight

  3

  2

  85,000

  165,000

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  18

  —

  —

  267,000

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  7

  2

  77,700

  207,000

  Leeds

  4

  —

  —

  557,300

  Leicestershire

  5

  2

  29,300

  162,100

  Lincolnshire

  2

  2

  117,000

  130,000

  Liverpool

  2

  1

  96,000

  147,100

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  5

  2

  34,900

  95,800

  Morecambe Bay

  10

  6

  137,000

  226,500

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  7

  2

  67,400

  240,300

  Northamptonshire

  7

  4

  50,000

  90,000

  North Cheshire

  1

  1

  50,000

  50,000

  North Cumbria

  14

  6

  206,600

  309,300

  North Derbyshire

  2

  1

  60,400

  60,400

  North and East Devon

  8

  7

  218,300

  346,300

  North Essex

  2

  2

  37,400

  38,400

  North and Mid Hampshire

  21

  7

  185,200

  658,600

  North Staffordshire

  10

  6

  168,800

  276,500

  North West Lancashire

  7

  5

  161,800

  311,700

  North Yorkshire

  30

  8

  194,400

  550,900

  North West Anglia

  4

  —

  —

  90,000

  Nottingham

  7

  2

  35,700

  222,800

  Oxfordshire

  8

  6

  222,000

  242,000

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  18

  8

  170,500

  719,400

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  6

  4

  57,700

  209,700

  Rotherham

  10

  6

  141,500

  312,700

  Salford and Trafford

  2

  2

  22,300

  22,300

  Sandwell

  8

  —

  —

  151,000

  Sefton

  1

  —

  —

  48,500

  St Helens and Knowsley

  7

  3

  80,000

  162,100

  Shropshire

  12

  7

  221,000

  457,000

  Solihull

  1

  —

  —

  22,000

  Somerset

  18

  5

  132,000

  722,200

  Southern Derbyshire

  4

  1

  12,000

  116,600

  South Cheshire

  10

  7

  155,700

  303,500

  South Essex

  5

  1

  40,000

  45,000

  South Humber

  3

  2

  59,000

  83,000

  South Lancashire

  5

  1

  23,300

  187,400

  South Staffordshire

  7

  2

  55,000

  143,000

  South West Devon

  12

  8

  213,700

  359,300

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  18

  9

  306,200

  918,800

  Stockport

  1

  —

  —

  14,000

  Suffolk

  6

  6

  109,000

  124,000

  Sunderland

  6

  —

  —

  207,600

  Tees

  3

  —

  —

  146,900

  Walsall

  3

  —

  —

  100,500

  Warwickshire

  1

  —

  —

  154,000

  West Hertfordshire

  2

  1

  40,000

  107,900

  West Kent

  3

  2

  80,200

  102,200

  106

  107

  Investing in dentistry requests by health authority

  Health authority

  Number of applications submitted

  Number of applications approved

  Gross funding awarded £

  Gross funding requested £

  West Surrey

  9

  4

  168,100

  902,600

  West Sussex

  31

  5

  90,616

  783,600

  Wigan and Bolton

  4

  1

  63,200

  194,000

  Wiltshire

  20

  14

  584,800

  1,128,600

  Wirral

  5

  —

  —

  123,000

  Wolverhampton

  4

  1

  50,000

  132,500

  Worcestershire

  3

  1

  40,000

  232,000

  Notes:

  1. Gross funding figures have been rounded up to the nearest hundred pounds.

  2. Some gross funding requested figures may be inflated due to the inclusion of revised or re-submitted applications.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to appoint a pharmacist to membership of each primary care group; [66657]

  (2) when primary care groups will have their membership expanded to include a community optician. [66656]

  Mr. Denham
  Pharmacists and opticians are recognised as important stakeholders in the community and primary care group boards have the power to co-opt them onto the board so as to make proper use of their skills and knowledge, but we do not intend to require a pharmacist or optician member on all boards.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from community health councils regarding the composition of primary care groups. [66652]

  Mr. Denham
  The Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales has been involved with discussions about the establishment of primary care groups since February 1998.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons dentists were excluded from the membership of primary care groups. [66655]

  Mr. Denham
  Dentists are not excluded from primary care groups. Dentists are recognised as important stakeholders in the community and primary care group boards have the power to co-opt them onto the board so as to make proper use of their skills and knowledge, but we do not intend to require a dentist member on all boards.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 1999,Official Report, columns 381–82, what estimate he has made of the annual number of general practitioner appointments with patients which will have to be covered by either locum GPs or other GPs within the practices, as a result of GP participation in the administration of primary care groups. [67253]

  Mr. Denham
  We have put in place a framework of allowances for primary care group board members that enables general practitioner practices to claim locum costs to cover the absence on PCG business of a member of the practice. The number of GP appointments that may have to be covered by either locum GPs or other GPs within the practices as a result of GP participation in the 108
  administration of PCGs is entirely dependent upon how each of the 481 PCG boards organises its business and to what degree that business is conducted within individual GPs' surgery hours.

  Nurse Education
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for improvements to nurse education and training. [66864]

  Mr. Denham
  We want to see nurse education become more accessible and provide nurses with the practical skills they need when they enter the National Health Service. We will be discussing how we achieve this with representatives of the professions and the universities, and with Sir Len Peach, Chair of the United Kingdom Central Council Commission for Education. The commission is reviewing nurse education and will report in the summer.

  Loyalty Bonuses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a loyalty bonus pay scheme for years of service accrued in the National Health Service. [66927]

  Mr. Denham
  We want to see a fair and modern pay system in the National Health Service. We intend to publish proposals for achieving pay reform in the spring.

  Residential Care Workers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement to the House on 5 November 1998,Official Report, columns 1011–13, what assessment he has made of the call for a comprehensive system of training and qualification for all residential care workers contained in the Residential Forum's report, "A Golden Opportunity". [66814]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are working to reshape training for residential child care staff in the context of the White Paper Modernising Social Services and as an integral part of our Quality Protects programme. To achieve our aims, we shall work in partnership with employment, users, professional and education interests in order that the best possible training opportunities may be provided for these staff. We have already begun this work through a series of initiatives reviewing the content of professional social work training, investing in new post qualifying training specifically for child care to be delivered in centres of excellence and by funding training to National Vocational Qualifications level 3 for other residential child care staff.
  109
  We see residential child care work as being firmly rooted in the values and ethos of social work and we intend to continue this as the basis of training for staff who deal with damaged and vulnerable children.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he(a) is taking and (b) intends to take to ensure that the guidelines set out in EL 95/97 for choosing those MS patients suitable for treatments with beta interferon are consistently implemented. [66740]

  Ms Jowell
  Most health authorities now have procedures in place by which suitable patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis can receive treatment with beta interferon. However, consideration is being given to the possible need for further guidance, in the light of continuing debate about the clinical and cost effectiveness of beta interferon.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with MS were prescribed Azathiopine between 1995 and 1998. [66856]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not available. 1,024,500 National Health Service prescriptions for Azathioprine were dispensed in the community in England between 1995 and 1997 (1998 data are not yet available), but hospital dispensing data, and information on medical conditions for which the drug was prescribed, and the numbers of patients for whom it was prescribed are not held centrally.

  Care Pathways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance on the provision of care pathways for patients with long-term medical conditions. [66874]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no plans at present to issue guidance on care pathways for patients with long-term care conditions.

  The Health Select Committee in its investigation into the relationship between health and social services has recommended that the Department draw up user pathways for a comprehensive range of conditions and services.

  The Department is currently reviewing all recommendations set out the Committee's report on the relationship between health and social services and will be responding in due course.

  Local Deprivation Indicators
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which measures of local deprivation his Department and its agencies use in considering allocation of funds to local projects. [66724]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department provides project funding to a range of voluntary organisations through a number of grant schemes. Decisions about which projects to fund are made, essentially, by referral to the aims and strengths of the individual applications and how each one relates to the Department's aims and objectives. The extent to which a project grant would have an impact on local deprivation would be considered alongside all the other aspects, and the particular circumstances, of that specific project.

  Aldehydes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants plans to consider aldehydes; and if he will make a statement; [66728]

  (2) what further action he plans to take to reduce levels of aldehydes in ambient air; and what plans he has for further research into their sources. [66713]

  Ms Jowell
  This Department's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants will be examining the health effects of aldehydes as part of its on-going review of pollutants, probably towards the end of 1999. The committee's advice will determine whether further research is appropriate, including the further identification of sources.

  We understand that there is no detailed inventory of the sources of formaldehyde emissions in the United Kingdom. However, road vehicles are likely to be a significant source, particularly in built-up areas. Action taken to implement new European legislation to reduce emissions from new passenger cars and light duty vans in 2000 and 2005 is likely to reduce emissions of hydrocarbons (including aldehydes) from road transport. Further changes to improve fuel quality from 2000 and 2005 are also expected to reduce significantly the level of noxious emissions from the existing vehicle fleet.

  Operating Department Practitioners
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the(a) benefits and (b) disadvantages of regulating operating department practitioners. [66877]

  Mr. Denham
  This is a matter for the profession.

  Housing
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what appraisal he has made of the incidence and cost of ill-health currently attributable to poor ventilation and condensation in the housing stock. [66884]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: We recognise the very important links between poor housing and ill health. That is why Ministerial colleagues within the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have released substantial additional resources for housing, regeneration and energy efficiency measures. Additional Government action to tackle poverty, unemployment and unhealthy lifestyles will also play a key role.

  Significant risks to health arise from cold and damp conditions. Those likely to be most affected are often the most vulnerable in society: the old, the very young, the disabled and those living on low incomes. The main health outcomes are respiratory diseases, such as asthma and bronchitis and cardiovascular diseases, as well as accidents and mental health.

  The Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are jointly funding a £1 million research programme over 3 years. This programme, "The effects on health of exposure to air pollutants and damp in the home", is focusing on indoor air pollution and its effects on health. The effects on sensitive individuals in the population, interactions

  111
  between indoor air pollutants and the health effects of damp, including respiratory disease and asthma, as well as ventilation and the relationship between indoor and outdoor pollutants, are main focuses of the studies.

  Health Action Zones are targetting special effort in areas of deprivation to develop new approaches to improving health and services and a number of these are working to improve housing and energy efficiency in poor homes. From April this year, all health authorities will begin developing local health improvement programmes in partnership with local National Health Service bodies and local authorities to achieve improvements in health. Housing will be a key area where these bodies can work together to improve the health of local communities.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research has been commissioned into the incidence of carbon monoxide poisoning caused by long-term exposure to poorly-ventilated domestic gas appliances; [65329]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the level of awareness among general practitioners of the incidence of carbon monoxide poisoning from poorly-ventilated domestic gas appliances and the medical symptoms of long-term exposure to low levels of carbon monoxide. [65330]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: Carbon Monoxide (CO) poisoning causes 50 accidental deaths and nearly 200 serious injuries in the United Kingdom each year and is still a significant public health issue. First, we welcome the Department of Trade and Industry's recent campaign "Carbon Monoxide Can Kill—Keep Your Family Safe". This campaign will help to raise the awareness of the dangers of CO to those made at risk.

  The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) has regularly reminded all doctors over the last two years, through his update, of the importance of identifying cases of CO poisoning. To reinforce the message even further and more widely the CMO and Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) published a letter "Carbon Monoxide: The Forgotten Killer" in September last year, which provided the most up-to-date information about CO to community nurses, midwives, health visitors, general practitioners and other health professionals. In particular, health professionals were reminded about the similarity of the symptoms of long-term exposure to lower levels of CO to food poisoning and influenza.

  This Department, in association with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, is currently funding a £1 million joint research programme about the effects of exposure to air pollutants and damp in the home. Three of these research projects specifically address CO exposure.

  A major three-year Department of Health/Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions £3 million research programme, which focused mainly on outdoor pollutants, is coming to an end shortly and decisions will be taken shortly on future research funding. One priority area will be CO poisoning in the home.

  Stroke Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what rights stroke victims or their relatives have to insist on patients' treatment in specialist stroke units; [66837]

  (2) if he will make a statement on national implementation plans for stroke care. [66839]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following a stroke patients are entitled to expect that an appropriate service will be provided, but that service will not necessarily be within a specialist stroke unit. The organisation of health authorities services, including those for people who have had a stroke, and the manner in which they are delivered are matters for the health authority, taking account of the needs of the local population and the priorities set for the use of the available resources.

  In the recent guidance which we issued on "Commissioning in the New NHS" in October 1998 the importance of care pathways was stressed. Our proposals for "Pathways" of care will link primary care, secondary care and social care where appropriate. We emphasised in this guidance that care pathways would be developed to cover a range of preventative diagnostic, palliative, rehabilitative and supporting caring components of an integrated programme of care. The care and treatments of patients with stroke provides an example of how care pathways can work in practice.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (1) is his estimate of(a) the amount of money and (b) the percentage of the NHS budget spent annually over the last five years on stroke treatment and rehabilitation; [66838]

  (2) how many stroke patients were treated in the NHS outside specialist stroke units in the last year for which figures are available; [66840]

  (3) how many specialist stroke units there are and how many patients were treated in them in the last year for which figures are available; [66841]

  (4) what is his estimate of the effectiveness of specialist stroke units. [66842]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available. The organisation of health services, including services for people who have had a stroke, and the manner in which they are delivered are matters for the health authority, taking account of the needs of the local population and the priorities set for the use of the available resources.

  Cardiac Disease (Hospital Waiting Times)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he has set for the maximum possible waiting time for operations to deal with life-threatening cardiac conditions. [67015]

  Mr. Denham
  We have set no new targets for maximum waiting times for operations to deal with life-threatening cardiac conditions. However, an external reference group is currently working with the Department of Health to develop a national service framework covering all aspects of National Health Service care for people with coronary heart disease.

  Bone Marrow Transplants
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many registered bone marrow donors there are; [67134]

  (2) what is the average cost of a bone marrow transplant; [67133]

  (3) how many people are currently waiting for bone marrow transplants. [67135]

  Mr. Hutton
  According to the recently published "New NHS 1998 Reference Costs" the average unit cost of a bone marrow graft is £10,600.

  There are approximately 381,000 potential bone marrow donors registered currently on the two bone marrow registers operating in England. The British bone marrow register holds around 91,000 names and the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust has approaching 290,000.
  114
  Figures for the number of people currently waiting for a bone marrow transplant are not kept centrally.

  Shopmobility Schemes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support his Department is providing to shopmobility schemes in the current financial year. [67144]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Federation of Shopmobility, which is the umbrella body for local shopmobility schemes, is not receiving any financial support under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 during the current financial year from the Department. The National Federation of Shopmobility has submitted two applications under the Section 64 grant scheme for the financial year commencing 1 April 1999 and these are currently under consideration.

SCOTLAND

  Glasgow City Council
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what form of financial support has been made by the Scottish Office to Glasgow City Council to pay for a feasibility study into its proposed mass stock transfer initiative. [63324]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: Glasgow City Council has been granted consent to borrow £1.065 million in order to undertake feasibility work under the new housing partnerships initiative. Loan charges support for this borrowing will be available from The Scottish Office.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rules or guidance his Department has to govern the(a) formal and (b) informal interaction between his civil servants and commercial lobbyists. [66206]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 27 July 1998,Official Report, column 4.

  Hunterston B Nuclear Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the emergency declared at the Hunterston B nuclear plant on 27 December. [66426]

  Mr. Dewar
  In order to operate their cooling systems all nuclear power stations need access to either the Grid or to their own power sources. As a result of the severe weather that affected the West of Scotland on 26–27 December 1998 connection to all 4 power Grid lines to Hunterston B was lost shortly after midnight. Staff safely shut down both the reactors at Hunterston B. Back-up generators were activated automatically to prevent overheating.

  The generators were shut down when the Grid connection was restored. However, they did not restart automatically when the Grid connection was lost for a second time. An on-site emergency was declared early on the morning of 27 December. Management at the station took that decision to ensure that additional technical staffing resources were available to deal with the on-site consequences of the power loss as rapidly as possible. By this time the reactors had been safely shut down for nearly 11 hours. There was no damage to, or release of radioactivity from the plant.

  Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors are investigating the incident and will report on it in
  their Quarterly Statement of Nuclear Incidents at Nuclear Installations; and
  their report to the Local Community Liaison Committee.
  116
  I have asked HSE to send copies of these documents to my hon. Friend when they are published.

  Drugs
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each project of over £10,000 the programmes funded by (i) Scotland Against Drugs and (ii) the Drugs Challenge Fund in 1997–98 indicating the programmes of over £10,000 which have been commissioned under these headings in financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; what is the total proposed budget for(a) SAD and (b) the Drugs Challenge Fund for each of the next three financial years; what are the running costs; and what percentage of total funds will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65939]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Funding of £1 million per annum has been made available to Scotland Against Drugs, including £0.5 million for the Drugs Challenge Fund for the years 1998–99 to 2000–01. Running costs for this financial year are estimated at £0.250 million. These funds will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Information on programmes over £10,000 is set out in the tables.

  (i) Scotland against drugs

  £

  Programme

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  National Drug Awareness Week Activity/Promotion

  115,942

  —

  —

  Young People's Programme

  Primary School Project

  40,038

  —

  —

  Youth Action Fund

  80,550

  —

  —

  SFA Partnership Project

  71,768

  —

  —

  Concession Card

  190,314

  —

  —

  Young Scot Activities

  25,438

  —

  —

  Youth Events

  14,801

  —

  —

  Media Strategy

  389,408

  —

  —

  Total

  812,317

  —

  —

  Adult/Parent Programme

  Adult/Parent Programme

  178,637

  —

  —

  Adult/Media Strategy

  608,770

  —

  —

  Total

  787,407

  —

  —

  Business/Commerce Programme

  Business Support

  7,275

  —

  —

  Education in the Workplace

  66,937

  —

  —

  Total

  74,212

  —

  —

  Public Relations

  Communications Strategy

  —

  119,000

  2—

  Young People Programme

  Primary School Initiative

  —

  1130,000

  2—

  Adult/Parent Programme

  Drugs in the Workplace

  —

  1131,000

  2—

  1 Estimated out-turn

  2 Uncommitted

  117

  (ii) Scottish drugs challenge fund

  £

  Project

  1997–98

  1998–99

  11999–2000

  Glasgow City Council Parks and Recreation Department

  14,000

  —

  —

  Govan Initiative Ltd

  10,146

  —

  —

  Enhance RDP (Turning point)

  34,133

  —

  —

  Queen of the South FC

  10,200

  —

  —

  Motherwell Athletics Club

  52,700

  —

  —

  Renfrewshire Council

  11,400

  —

  —

  Evening Times

  40,000

  —

  —

  Health Promotions—Grampian Health Board

  50,000

  —

  —

  Friends of Craigmillar

  20,667

  —

  —

  Paisley Partnership

  11,050

  —

  —

  Drumchapel Community Drugs Forum

  10,000

  —

  —

  North Lanarkshire Council Education Department

  16,000

  —

  —

  Drumchapel Adventure Group

  12,940

  —

  —

  Greater Easterhouse Development Co Ltd.

  17,000

  —

  —

  Fablevision

  32,000

  —

  —

  Calton Athletic Recovery Group

  50,000

  —

  Lanark Road Project

  11,136

  —

  —

  Govan Youth Access Project

  10,500

  —

  —

  Forfar Drugs Initiative Group

  23,000

  —

  —

  Drumchapel Adventure Group

  —

  14,000

  33,110

  Evening Times

  —

  5,000

  45,000

  Drumchapel Drugs Forum

  —

  5,000

  12,200

  Simpson House

  —

  11,120

  11,125

  Renfrewshire Council Education and Leisure Services

  —

  6,000

  13,984

  Mayfield and Easthouses Manse Project

  —

  25,350

  —

  Renfrewshire Council Social Work Department

  —

  25,440

  —

  Central Scotland NHS Trust Community Addiction

  —

  14,481

  —

  Media Education

  —

  12,750

  12,755

  Mastrick Youth Café

  —

  26,000

  —

  Community Athletics 2000

  —

  41,000

  —

  Govan Youth Access Project

  —

  10,000

  —

  Tayside Police

  —

  20,000

  —

  South Lanarkshire Council

  —

  26,666

  —

  Tayside Police

  —

  7,333

  7,333

  Scottish Football Association

  —

  50,000

  —

  Health Promotion, Grampian Health Board

  —

  50,000

  —

  Fablevision

  —

  34,150

  —

  Renfrewshire Council

  —

  11,200

  —

  Friends of Craigmillar

  —

  20,775

  11,600

  Glasgow City Council Cultural and Leisure Services

  —

  28,280

  —

  1 Committed

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of all allocations of money over £10,000 made under the rough sleepers initiative in the financial year 1997–98 indicating allocations over £10,000 already made under the initiative for financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; what is the

  £

  Local authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  Aberdeen City Council

  —

  232,184

  308,482

  540,666

  Dundee City Council

  70,313

  249,812

  586,625

  906,750

  East Lothian Council

  20,000

  56,526

  169,579

  246,105

  East and West Dunbartonshire Councils

  —

  11,200

  34,300

  45,500

  City of Edinburgh Council

  821,000

  2,379,328

  1,590,880

  4,791,208

  Falkirk Council

  —

  —

  522,300

  522,300

  Fife Council

  141,535

  118,330

  170,666

  430,531

  Glasgow City Council

  1,072,900

  2,223,700

  2,353,300

  5,649,900

  Highland Council

  16,700

  16,800

  —

  33,500

  Inverclyde Council

  13,600

  33,500

  34,300

  81,400

  Moray Council

  14,600

  49,745

  280,380

  344,725

  North and South Ayrshire Councils

  15,000

  46,100

  218,250

  279,350

  North Lanarkshire Council

  16,800

  257,497

  526,813

  801,110

  118
  total available under the initiative for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65953]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The breakdown of allocations of over £10,000 made under the Rough Sleepers Initiative on 1997–98 and 1998–99, including allocations for the year 1999–2000, was as follows:

  119

  £

  Local authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  Perth and Kinross Council

  137,000

  318,162

  354,351

  809,513

  Renfrewshire Council

  10,100

  24,800

  134,925

  169,825

  South Lanarkshire Council

  16,600

  67,640

  73,580

  157,820

  Stirling Council

  —

  11,650

  23,900

  35,550

  West Lothian Council

  —

  37,500

  37,500

  75,000

  Glasgow Council for Single Homeless

  —

  24,334

  33,163

  57,497

  A further £14 million has been identified for the Rough Sleepers Initiative over the 2 years, 2000–01 and 2001–02. All of these funds will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Mental Health Development Fund
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each project of over £10,000 the programmes(a) funded from the Mental Health

  Health board

  Project

  1998–99 Funding (£)

  Argyll and Clyde

  Joint commissioning development project

  61,000

  Pilot for jointly appointed manager for combined community mental health team

  42,000

  Needs assessment led service development for children and young people with mental disorder in care and on the child protection register

  57,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Establishment of co-ordination and support for community
  health teams

  88,000

  User and carer involvement in community care planning

  63,000

  Fife

  Needs led integrated service development

  117,000

  Real jobs initiative—employer liaison

  10,000

  Forth Valley

  Shared learning initiative

  28,000

  Grampian

  Joint commissioning manager

  50,000

  Community education workers

  50,000

  Senior care managers—mental health

  75,000

  Greater Glasgow

  Dementia Glasgow 1999

  220,000

  Assessment of mental health needs of homeless population

  78,000

  Challenge of change—project 1

  78,000

  Challenge of change—project 2

  49,000

  Ethnic minorities development worker

  22,000

  Lanarkshire

  Project team approach to mental health needs assessment and user and carer involvement

  203,000

  Lothian

  Housing liaison project

  38,000

  Planning for training, education and employment

  29,000

  Developing a community sensitive mental health service

  44,000

  Orkney

  Dementia project

  12,000

  Note:

  Invitations have issued for bids for funds for later years

  As health related expenditure the Fund will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Crime (Research)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of all allocations of money over £10,000 for research projects into crime, the causes of crime, the prison system, the police or the criminal justice system; if he will give the allocations over £10,000 already made for such research projects for financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; if he will give the total funds available for each of the next three financial years for such projects; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65812]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Research on crime, the causes of crime, the prison
  120
  Development Fund in 1997–98 and (b) commissioned by his Department to be funded from the Mental Health Development Fund in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000; what is the total proposed budget for such projects for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this he estimates will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65932]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The first allocation made from the Mental Health Development Fund issued during financial year 1998–99. Awards over £10,000 in that year were as follows:

  system, the police and the criminal justice system is commissioned by The Scottish Office from its criminal law research vote and, in part, from the social work research vote (offender social work services). Funds available from these research votes over the next three years are shown in the following table. From July 1999, these funds will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  £

  Year

  Criminal law research vote

  Social work research vote

  1999–2000

  532,000

  150,000

  2000–01

  532,000

  150,000

  2001–02

  532,000

  150,000

  Research projects for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 costing over £10,000 are listed in the table.

  121

  £000

  Research projects

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Young men and offending

  65

  —

  Young women and offending

  8

  2

  Women offenders

  —

  60

  Evaluation of Freagarrach (President Young Offenders)

  13

  17

  Children Jointly Reported to Reporters and Procurators Fiscal Children's Hearing's Cohort Study (not soley offenders)

  —

  18

  Evaluation of Diversion

  30

  10

  Taking Account of Victims Views

  12

  —

  Social Work and Criminal Justice Programme—Phase 3: Re-conviction of probationers and ex-prisoners

  9

  5

  Evaluation of Supervised Attendance Orders

  —

  34

  Evaluation of Airborne Initiative

  —

  28

  Research To Develop A New Police Standard Entrance Test

  36

  —

  Child Witness Support Initiative

  13

  —

  Intermediate Diets and the Agreement of Evidence

  22

  9

  Evaluation of the Strathclyde Police Witness Protection Pilot Project

  17

  —

  Comparison of Homicide Rates in Scotland, England and Wales

  14

  —

  Evaluation of the Open Doors Programme HMP Barlinnie

  20

  19

  Young Offenders Held in Custody

  31

  —

  Repeat Victimisation

  21

  3

  Evaluation of the Young Offender Mediation

  11

  —

  Evaluation of Electronically Monitored Restriction of Liberty Orders

  15

  25

  Survey of Crimes Against Business in Scotland

  46

  69

  Experience of Violence and Harassment of Gay Men in the City of Edinburgh

  11

  3

  Local Care Partnership Scheme
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of all allocations of money over £10,000 made under the Local Care Partnership scheme in the financial year 1997–98; if he will list the allocations over £10,000 already made under this scheme for the financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; if he will give(a) the amount allocated to running costs and (b) the total funds available for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65811]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The allocations over £10,000 made from the Local Care Partnership Scheme in financial year 1998–99 were as follows:

  £

  Health board area/project

  1998–99 funding

  Argyll and Clyde

  Strategic approach to joint commissioning of addiction services—Joint Development Officer

  34,000

  Co-operation in Levern Valley

  64,000

  Rapid response team

  51,000

  Borders

  Multi agency model for assessment in care management

  57,000

  Fife

  Integrated assessment care delivery project

  66,000

  Forth Valley

  Community care joint information system

  25,000

  Greater Glasgow

  Carewell one stop care shop for older people

  48,000

  Highland

  Skye support workers scheme

  42,000

  Inverness and Culloden Project

  100,000

  122

  £

  Health board area/project

  1998–99 funding

  Lothian

  Broxburn Challenge Centre Partnership

  59,000

  Tayside

  Development of care pathways for patients with fractured neck of femur

  17,000

  Allocations made over £10,000 for financial year 1999–2000 were as follows:

  £

  Health board area/project

  1999–2000 funding

  Borders

  Hitting the targets

  51,000

  Lanarkshire

  Services for homeless people

  55,000

  The Scheme did not operate in 1997–98. The Scheme will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Social Inclusion Partnerships
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of all allocations of money over £10,000 made under the Social Inclusion Partnerships in the financial year 1997–98; if he will state the allocations over £10,000 already made under this programme for the financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; if he will give(a) the amount allocated to running costs and (b) the total funds available for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65808]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: No allocations have yet been made to Social Inclusion Partnerships. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 13 November that he would allocate

  123
  £18 million of the £48 million available over the next 3 years to 3 new Social Inclusion Partnerships in Drumchapel, Greater Pollok and Blantyre/North Hamilton when they submit detailed strategies which demonstrate satisfactorily that they can meet their objectives. They have been asked to do so by 15 February. Further decisions on the designation of Social Inclusion Partnerships have yet to be made.

  The funds earmarked for Social Inclusion Partnerships will be included within the Scottish Administration's Assigned Budget and will be subject to decisions of the Scottish Parliament.

  Contingency Fund
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current amount of his Department's emergency reserve or contingency fund; and what amount he proposes it should be in each of next three financial years. [65813]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Scottish Office does not have and has no plans for an emergency reserve or contingency fund. After devolution it will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether it wishes to set aside resources for this purpose.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of projects receiving assistance under the New Opportunities Fund in the current financial year; what funds have already been earmarked(a) in total and (b) by project where already allocated for the next three financial years; and what percentage will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65796]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: National Lottery funding is not subject to annuality. Current estimates of cash allocations for the first three initiatives over the next four years, and of the percentages allocated for Scottish projects, are as follows:

  Initiative

  Total allocation (£ million)

  Percentage allocation to Scotland

  Healthy Living Centres

  300

  11.5

  ICT training for teachers and librarians

  300

  10.2

  Out of school hours learning and child care

  400

  11.5

  The New Opportunities Fund will be inviting applications under these initiatives over the next few months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has also published a consultation paper on three further possible initiatives to be funded by the New Opportunities Fund over the next four years. £400 million is expected to be available for these initiatives, but its division among them and the percentages to be allocated to Scotland have not yet been
  124
  determined. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make an announcement shortly on the involvement of Scottish Ministers in National Lottery distribution after devolution.

  Empty Homes Initiative
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of all allocations of money over £10,000 made under the Empty Homes Initiative in the financial year 1997–98; if he will give the allocations over £10,000 already made under this programme for financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; if he will give(a) the amount allocated to running costs and (b) the total funds available for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65801]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The breakdown of allocations of over £10,000 made under the Empty Homes Initiative in 1997–98 and 1998–99 was as follows:

  £

  Local authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  Aberdeen City Council

  —

  45,610

  45,610

  Aberdeenshire Council

  31,066

  544,000

  575,066

  Angus Council

  —

  30,000

  30,000

  Argyll & Bute Council

  —

  30,000

  30,000

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  28,000

  40,000

  68,000

  Dumfries and Galloway Council

  —

  55,000

  55,000

  Dundee City Council

  —

  30,027

  30,027

  East Ayrshire Council

  58,000

  156,400

  214,400

  East Lothian Council

  —

  65,000

  65,000

  East Renfrewshire Council

  —

  77,092

  77,092

  City of Edinburgh Council

  254,980

  1,249,050

  1,504,030

  Falkirk Council

  140,000

  192,000

  332,000

  Fife Council

  —

  29,000

  29,000

  Glasgow City Council

  627,332

  1,603,860

  2,231,192

  Highland Council

  127,100

  461,074

  588,174

  Inverclyde Council

  —

  22,588

  22,588

  Moray Council

  15,000

  169,500

  184,500

  North Ayrshire Council

  —

  141,300

  141,300

  North Lanarkshire Council

  348,322

  305,371

  653,693

  Perth & Kinross Council

  —

  20,000

  20,000

  Scottish Borders Council

  64,000

  674,873

  738,873

  Shetlands Islands Council

  10,700

  51,100

  61,800

  South Ayrshire Council

  —

  27,500

  27,500

  South Lanarkshire Council

  —

  168,470

  168,470

  Stirling Council

  140,000

  230,000

  370,000

  West Dunbartonshire Council

  30,000

  149,000

  179,000

  West Lothian Council

  110,000

  425,000

  535,000

  The running costs associated with the Empty Homes Initiative are covered within the Scottish Office administration budget. Over the next three financial years, 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, a further sum of up to £15 million has been identified for the Initiative and local authorities have been asked to submit proposals by 12 February. All Empty Homes Initiative funds will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been received to date under the Empty Homes Initiative broken down by(a) council and (b) amount. [66267]
  125
  Mr. Macdonald
  Thirty-one local authorities have applied to date for funding through the Empty Homes Initiative. The applications, broken down by council and amount, are as follows:

  £

  Local authority

  Applications for funding in 1997–98

  Applications for funding in 1998–99

  Aberdeen City Council

  13,000

  788,010

  Aberdeenshire Council

  103,766

  592,200

  Angus Council

  38,500

  130,000

  Argyll & Bute Council

  30,000

  30,000

  Clackmannanshire Council

  —

  500,000

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  120,250

  92,500

  Dumfries & Galloway Council

  —

  55,000

  Dundee City Council

  —

  112,258

  East Ayrshire Council

  734,279

  956,400

  East Dunbartonshire Council

  —

  350,000

  East Lothian Council

  57,000

  65,000

  East Renfrewshire Council

  30,000

  77,092

  City of Edinburgh Council

  717,857

  2,582,250

  Falkirk Council

  140,000

  192,000

  Fife Council

  35,000

  183,208

  Glasgow City Council

  2,016,000

  6,530,647

  Highland Council

  266,045

  573,074

  Inverclyde Council

  —

  163,588

  Midlothian Council

  151,200

  151,200

  Moray Council

  15,000

  193,827

  North Ayrshire Council

  —

  441,300

  North Lanarkshire Council

  598,322

  900,262

  Perth & Kinross Council

  —

  20,000

  Renfrewshire Council

  396,000

  648,000

  Scottish Borders Council

  188,400

  1,054,873

  Shetland Islands Council

  10,700

  211,200

  South Ayrshire Council

  94,900

  94,750

  South Lanarkshire Council

  410,500

  239,352

  (a) Central Challenge Fund

  £000

  Authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Financial year 2001–02

  Angus

  2,613

  1,705

  854

  —

  —

  Aberdeenshire

  1,701

  1,500

  199

  —

  —

  Clackmannanshire

  310

  210

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  700

  1,175

  —

  —

  —

  East Ayrshire

  1,520

  910

  —

  —

  —

  East Dunbartonshire

  185

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  300

  200

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh, City of

  2,935

  1,416

  2,649

  —

  —

  Eilean Siar

  800

  1,200

  1,200

  650

  —

  Glasgow City

  1,076

  1,842

  1,488

  157

  99

  Moray

  100

  700

  200

  —

  —

  North Lanarkshire

  500

  1,000

  2,300

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  4,400

  8,100

  3,600

  380

  South Ayrshire

  375

  503

  —

  —

  —

  West Dumbartonshire

  127

  173

  158

  —

  —

  West Lothian

  1,646

  1,898

  1,888

  —

  —

  Total

  14,888

  18,832

  19,036

  4,407

  479

  Note:

  The figures describe original awards which, due to slippage and other factors, are subject to change

  Source:

  Scottish Office Development Department
  126

  £

  Local authority

  Applications for funding in 1997–98

  Applications for funding in 1998–99

  Stirling Council

  200,000

  230,000

  West Dunbartonshire Council

  30,000

  409,000

  West Lothian Council

  215,000

  525,000

  Total

  6,611,719

  19,091,991

  Sixteen authorities were awarded a total of £2 million for 1997–98 and 27 authorities were awarded a total of £7 million for 1998–99. In November 1998 local authorities were invited to submit applications by 12 February 1999 for funding in the three years from 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  From 1 July 1999 the Empty Homes Initiative will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Challenge Fund
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of allocations of money over £10,000 made from the Challenge Fund in the financial year 1997–98, indicating allocations over £10,000 already made from the fund for financial years 1998–-99 and 1999–2000; what is the total available under the fund for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65952]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The information is set out in the tables. The allocations shown are fully committed for those projects that were successful in the 1997–98 Central Challenge Fund and the 1997–98 and 1998–99 Transport Challenge Funds. These resources will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  127

  (b) Transport Challenge Fund

  £000

  Financial year

  Authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Aberdeen City

  —

  2,400

  2,900

  Angus

  1,000

  1,000

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  3,000

  —

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  —

  800

  1,700

  Edinburgh, City of

  4,000

  7,200

  5,000

  Falkirk

  —

  500

  2,500

  Fife

  —

  900

  1,800

  Highland

  3,000

  —

  —

  Midlothian

  —

  1,000

  1,500

  Scottish Borders

  4,000

  2,500

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  —

  500

  2,000

  Stirling

  —

  1,200

  2,800

  SPTA

  —

  800

  4,200

  Total

  15,000

  18,800

  24,400

  Note:

  1. The figures describe original awards which, due to slippage and other factors, are subject to change.

  2. There are no Transport Challenge Fund awards due in 2000-01 or 2001–02.

  Source:

  Scottish Office Development Department

  Non-custodial Offenders
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a break-down of all allocations of money over £10,000 made under the non-custodial offenders services scheme in the financial year 1997–98; if he will give the allocations over £10,000 already made under this scheme for the financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; if he will give(a) the amount allocated to running costs and (b) the total funds available for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65795]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The table shows the allocation of grants made to local authorities in 1997–98 and 1998–99 by Central Government for the provision of criminal justice social work services. Allocation of grant for 1999–2000 has yet to be made. Most of the grant allocated to authorities is used for revenue funding: the capital element is very small. The total funds available for criminal justice social work services in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 are £40.8 million, £42.8 million, and £44 million respectively. All of the funding for criminal justice social work will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  £

  Local authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Aberdeen City

  2,120,749

  2,064,735

  Aberdeenshire

  720,000

  701,792

  Angus

  715,793

  749,043

  Argyll and Bute

  347,081

  354,366

  City of Dundee

  1,528,586

  1,737,279

  City of Edinburgh

  3,349,954

  3,363,637

  City of Glasgow

  5,739,105

  6,548,835

  Clackmannan

  259,400

  297,600

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,022,100

  1,018,698

  East Ayrshire

  791,360

  769,660

  East Dunbarton

  382,000

  348,250

  East Lothian

  455,888

  429,964

  East Renfrew

  416,100

  361,089

  Falkirk

  710,000

  800,480

  Fife

  2,321,795

  2,315,582

  128

  £

  Local authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Highland

  1,493,500

  1,412,500

  Inverclyde

  751,100

  836,723

  Midlothian

  383,089

  383,477

  Moray

  346,000

  352,396

  North Ayrshire

  882,260

  828,800

  North Lanark

  1,740,883

  1,803,563

  Orkney Islands

  357,293

  324,454

  Perth and Kinross

  759,604

  811,645

  Renfrewshire

  994,813

  1,054,990

  Scottish Borders

  577,500

  577,750

  Shetland Islands

  214,980

  199,747

  South Ayrshire

  595,231

  608,841

  South Lanark

  2,005,304

  2,060,594

  Stirling

  590,050

  613,580

  West Dunbarton

  668,381

  714,413

  West Lothian

  811,469

  784,627

  Western Isles

  135,276

  108,043

  Totals

  34,186,644

  35,337,153

  Millennium Festival Fund
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those projects which have been allocated funding from the Millennium Festival Fund(a) in the current financial year, (b) for 1999–2000 and (c) for 2000–01; what is the total moneys available from the fund in each of these years; and what percentage will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65805]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Millennium Festival Fund has been established to help the nation to celebrate the Millennium. Like other National Lottery expenditure, it is not subject to annuality. Each of the National Lottery distributing bodies operating in Scotland—the Scottish Sports Council, the Scottish Arts Council, the National Lottery Charities Board, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Millennium Commission—has contributed towards a Scottish fund of some £10.4 million.

  Applications for large grants, over £5,000, were invited in May last year, with a closing date of late October. Details of the successful projects will be announced late next month. A further funding round, aimed at local communities and small organisations seeking grants of £500–£5,000, is expected to be launched shortly. It will be operational until June 2000.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will shortly make an announcement on the involvement of Scottish Ministers in National Lottery distribution after devolution.

  New Deal for Communities
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of all allocations of money over £10,000 made under the New Deal for Communities in the financial year 1997–98; if he will give the allocations over £10,000 already made under this programme for financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; if he will give(a) the amount allocated to running costs and (b) the total funds available for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65799]
  129
  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Working for Communities and Listening to Communities programmes were introduced earlier this financial year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in May 1998 that two initial pathfinders would be established in Greater Easterhouse (Glasgow) and Wester Hailes (Edinburgh) under the Working for Communities programme; I expect the total cost of the two pathfinders in the current year to be between £250,000 and £300,000. An annual allocation of up to £200,000 is available to support each of the two pathfinders for the following three years.

  Funding of £315,000 is being made available to support the development of New Community Schools in this financial year. Funding for this initiative will in future years be made available through the Excellence Fund for Schools.

  A total of £3.3 million is available to support the Working for Communities and Listening to Communities programmes in each of the next two financial years, rising to £6.3 million in 2001–02. I have already announced the broad objectives for these two programmes and I expect to make a further announcement on the allocation of funds under these programmes before the end of March.

  The running costs associated with the programmes are covered within the Scottish Office administration budget, and the funds earmarked for the Working for Communities and Listening to Communities programmes will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Transport Projects
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the transport projects of over £100,000 for which contracts have been signed which will require public funds in each of the next three financial years; what will be the annual cost of each of these projects for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of proposed spending on(a) road, (b) rail, (c) air, (d) sea and (e) other transport for this period has thus been allocated. [65928]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on individual contracts entered into by local authorities is not held centrally.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each project of over £10,000 the moneys he has provided to(a) local authorities, (b) other groups and (c) projects commissioned by his Department for energy efficiency projects in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000; what is the total proposed budget for energy efficiency projects for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65937]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: In 1997–98 local authorities were allocated £2.5 million to improve the energy efficiency of their housing stock. In 1998–99 the Warm Deal has provided local authorities with £3 million, Home Energy Efficiency Installers with £1.75 million and Scottish Homes with £0.5 million to improve home energy efficiency across all tenures. An
  130
  extra £1 million has been made available but has not yet been allocated. The budget for the Warm Deal in 1999–2000 will be £6 million. These funds will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament. Local authorities may use other resources for energy efficiency projects but no details are held centrally.

  Innovation Fund for Child Health
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of all allocations of money over £10,000 made under the Innovation Fund for Child Health in the financial year 1997–98; if he will give the allocations over £10,000 already made under this programme for financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; if he will give(a) the amount allocated to running costs and (b) the total funds available for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65814]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: I announced details of the Innovation Fund for children's services in November 1998. No funds have been allocated from the fund for the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  The total amount made available in the next three financial years is as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2

  2000–01

  4

  2001–02

  3

  No funds have been allocated to running costs.

  As health related expenditure the Fund will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Child Care Projects
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown by(a) local authority and (b) policy objective of the money made available for child care projects in financial years 1992–93 to 1997–98; what money has been allocated for child care by policy heading and local authority in financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; what are the proposed total amounts to be made available for child care over each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65927]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Grant Aided Expenditure (GAE) for children's services provided by local authorities for the years 1992–93 to 1999–2000 is shown in Table 1. It is for authorities to determine the proportion that may be spent on child care projects.

  In addition to this funding, following the publication of the Green Paper "Meeting the Childcare Challenge: a Childcare Strategy for Scotland" (Cm 3958) an additional £4.7 million has been made available in 1998–99 to develop and support child care generally. Of this, £3.8 million was allocated to local authorities. The breakdown by authority is given in Table 2. Also in

  131
  1998–99, an extra £515,000 was allocated to Scottish Enterprise and £50,000 to Highland and Islands Enterprise to support the child care strategy.

  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, a further £49 million will be available over the three year period covering 1999–2000 to 2001–02 to support implementation of the child care strategy. £33 million of this will be allocated to local authorities: £5.75 million in 1999–2000, £13.75 million in 2000–01, and £13.75 million in 2001–02. In addition, £42 million will be made available to local authorities over 1999–2002 to expand support for families with very young children in areas of greatest need: £9 million in 1999–2000, £14 million in 2000–01, and £19 million in 2001–02. The breakdown of funding by authority for 1999–2000 is given in Columns 1 and 2 of Table 3. Decisions on allocations of funding to individual authorities in later years will be taken in due course.

  A new Children's Services Development Fund totalling £36.7 million over 3 years from 1999–2000 was announced in November last year. The Fund will help provide improved advocacy for children, extension of fostering services and expansion of support for families with very young children. The first year allocations are set out in Column 3 of Table 3. Allocations for later years will be determined in due course.

  This funding will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Table 1: Services for children

  GAE £000

  Local authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Borders

  1,956

  1,959

  2,295

  2,003

  Central

  9,134

  6,258

  10,959

  14,798

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,554

  3,886

  4,535

  4,143

  Fife

  10,028

  9,847

  12,534

  12,055

  Grampian

  16,430

  15,300

  15,689

  12,224

  Highland

  5,532

  5,555

  6,342

  6,679

  Lothian

  27,240

  27,535

  30,855

  29,198

  Strathclyde

  114,053

  110,928

  119,404

  106,520

  Tayside

  14,514

  14,649

  14,858

  14,023

  Orkney

  319

  316

  355

  405

  Shetland

  414

  586

  461

  414

  Western Isles

  631

  614

  624

  642

  Table 1 (continued): Services for children

  GAE £000

  Local authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Aberdeen City

  6,716

  6,405

  6,824

  7,082

  Aberdeenshire

  3,765

  4,040

  2,998

  2,942

  Angus

  2,683

  2,575

  2,542

  2,644

  Argyll and Bute

  2,555

  2,528

  2,362

  2,300

  Clackmannanshire

  1,727

  1,729

  1,708

  1,799

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,788

  3,905

  3,767

  4,215

  Dundee City

  7,475

  7,510

  8,475

  8,519

  East Ayrshire

  4,793

  4,960

  4,993

  5,232

  East Dunbartonshire

  2,434

  2,107

  1,852

  1,529

  East Lothian

  2,444

  2,472

  1,957

  2,375

  East Renfrewshire

  1,837

  1,991

  1,757

  1,624

  Edinburgh, City of

  17,602

  17,894

  18,758

  17,313

  Eilean Siar

  628

  609

  480

  499

  Falkirk

  4,914

  4,682

  5,058

  5,325

  Fife

  10,652

  11,460

  11,634

  11,964

  Glasgow City

  44,264

  44,182

  46,873

  48,385

  Highland

  6,204

  6,048

  5,449

  5,769

  Inverclyde

  4,428

  4,145

  4,661

  4,472

  Midlothian

  2,333

  2,532

  2,814

  2,779

  Moray

  1,677

  1,958

  1,617

  1,544

  132

  Table 1 (continued): Services for children

  GAE £000

  Local authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  North Ayrshire

  6,545

  6,215

  6,534

  7,075

  North Lanarkshire

  13,495

  13,754

  14,000

  14,877

  Orkney Islands

  275

  275

  237

  242

  Perthshire and Kinross

  2,814

  2,989

  2,915

  2,949

  Renfrewshire

  7,462

  7,842

  7,772

  7,863

  Scottish Borders

  2,016

  2,229

  2,043

  1,931

  Shetland Islands

  338

  330

  301

  295

  South Ayrshire

  3,265

  3,389

  3,422

  3,187

  South Lanarkshire

  10,032

  9,969

  10,164

  9,960

  Stirling

  2,554

  2,401

  2,460

  2,553

  West Dunbartonshire

  5,466

  5,410

  6,035

  6,150

  West Lothian

  5,610

  6,498

  6,725

  6,334

  Table 2: Additional money available in 1998–99 to develop and support child care

  £000 rounded to nearest £000

  Local authority

  1998–99

  Aberdeen City

  126

  Aberdeen

  145

  Angus

  82

  Argyll and Bute

  73

  Clackmannanshire

  58

  Dumfries and Galloway

  100

  Dundee City

  122

  East Ayrshire

  105

  East Dunbartonshire

  83

  East Lothian

  72

  East Renfrewshire

  75

  Edinburgh, City of

  240

  Eilean Siar

  43

  Falkirk

  104

  Fife

  218

  Glasgow City

  491

  Highland

  135

  Inverclyde

  87

  Midlothian

  69

  Moray

  72

  North Ayrshire

  114

  North Lanarkshire

  239

  Orkney Islands

  39

  Perthshire and Kinross

  91

  Renfrewshire

  135

  Scottish Borders

  77

  Shetland Islands

  41

  South Ayrshire

  87

  South Lanarkshire

  205

  Stirling

  70

  West Dunbartonshire

  93

  West Lothian

  112

  Table 3: Additional money allocated for 1999–2000 to develop and support child care

  £000

  Local authority

  Column 1 Child care strategy development

  Column 2 Support for families with very young children

  Column 3 Children's services development fund

  Aberdeen City

  198

  315

  301

  Aberdeenshire

  228

  257

  182

  Angus

  116

  151

  135

  Argyll and Bute

  95

  117

  106

  Clackmannanshire

  69

  91

  92

  Dumfries and Galloway

  146

  207

  190

  Dundee City

  157

  341

  391

  East Ayrshire

  134

  229

  241

  133

  Table 3: Additional money allocated for 1999–2000 to develop and support child care

  £000

  Local authority

  Column 1 Child care strategy development

  Column 2 Support for families with very young children

  Column 3 Children's services development fund

  East Dunbartonshire

  113

  123

  95

  East Lothian

  100

  130

  116

  East Renfrewshire

  100

  109

  86

  Edinburgh, City of

  429

  735

  747

  Eilean Siar

  50

  32

  27

  Falkirk

  147

  239

  237

  Fife

  368

  581

  584

  Glasgow City

  926

  1,699

  2,039

  Highland

  213

  309

  285

  Inverclyde

  102

  176

  191

  Midlothian

  94

  126

  120

  Moray

  100

  117

  95

  North Ayrshire

  154

  287

  314

  North Lanarkshire

  368

  637

  667

  Orkney Islands

  45

  22

  16

  Perthshire and Kinross

  132

  169

  150

  Renfrewshire

  188

  337

  353

  Scottish Borders

  109

  129

  107

  Shetland Islands

  49

  28

  20

  South Ayrshire

  116

  161

  156

  South Lanarkshire

  325

  518

  515

  Stirling

  93

  123

  117

  West Dunbartonshire

  116

  232

  265

  West Lothian

  169

  270

  258

  Excellence Fund
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown by(a) local authority and (b) policy objective or project over £10,000 of the money made available through the Excellence Fund to support children's learning in financial year 1997–98; what moneys have been allocated by policy objective or project or by local authority under the Excellence Fund in financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; what are the proposed total amounts to be made available under this heading for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65929]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Excellence Fund for Schools was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 15 July 1998. The Fund will operate for the three years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 and comprises a Core Programme and a Special Programme. The £322 million of the Core Programme will be allocated by formulae to authorities in accordance with Scottish Office Education Circulars 4/98, 6/98 and 9/98 copies of which have been placed in the library.

  £55 million will be made available under the Special Programme to support New Community Schools (£26 million), School Action Plans (£15 million) and Specialist Provision (£14 million). This money will be allocated to authorities on the basis of bids made against specific criteria. The Scottish Parliament will assume responsibility for expenditure from July.

  Fishing Industry (Grants)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown detailing the 134
  value of grants of projects or groups receiving assistance by way of EU and Scottish Office grants to the fishing industry and the fish processing industry in the current financial year, individually and in total; what funds have already been earmarked (a) in total and (b) by project where already allocated for the next three financial years; and what percentage will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65797]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), EC and UK funding is being made available between 1994–1999 to the fishing industry and fish processing industry in Scotland for various purposes. These funds will have been allocated before the Scottish Parliament is established. Expenditure on grants under the current EU programme is as follows:

  £

  Funds earmarked in this financial year

  3,968,397

  Funds already earmarked

  24,996,818

  Funds remaining to be awarded

  3,760,358

  Funds allocated to projects over the next three financial years

  5,488,651

  As the information required on individual projects relating to these figures is rather lengthy, I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The possibility of a successor scheme and its funding is being negotiated in the context of the Agenda 2000 proposals, but such aid will not be available before January 2000. The funding for any such scheme will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Business Growth Fund
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of all allocations of money over £10,000 made under the Business Growth Fund in the financial year 1997–98; if he will give the allocations over £10,000 already made under this programme for financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; if he will give(a) the amount allocated to running costs and (b) the total funds available for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65809]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: I intend the new Business Growth Fund to become operational from April 1999. Planned provision is: £3 million in 1999–2000, £4 million in 2000–01, and £5 million in 2001–02.

  Details of the scheme, including the amount to be allocated to running costs, are currently being finalised in discussion with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I hope to be able to announce the final framework of the scheme shortly.

  From July these resources will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Consort Healthcare
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what NHS properties have been sold to Consort Healthcare and for what amounts; who carried out the
  135
  valuation of the properties and at what sums they were valued; what Government body or bodies were involved in the transactions; what assessment he made of the advantages of selling the properties on the open market and for what reasons he decided not to; if he will publish details of the transactions; and if he will make a statement. [65519]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Throughout the PFI process our guiding principle has been to ensure the completion of proper economic appraisals and assure the delivery of value for money at all stages of this project. Furthermore through our openness policies we have ensured that as much information as is commercially possible has been put in the public domain.

  The disposal of excess sites by the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust has been done in such a way as to ensure that the Trust has received the proper value for the sites based on independent valuation and has been safeguarded against development gains.

  In accordance with our guidance, the Trust will in due course be publishing an Addendum to their Full Business Case setting out changes between FBC approval and financial close and summarising the commercial contract in plain English. That document will detail the land values and the contractual arrangements agreed to safeguard the Trust against overage.

  The sites at the City Hospital, the Princess Margaret Rose Orthopaedic Hospital and the Dental Hospital were included as a prepayment in the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) deal with Consort Healthcare. Planning restrictions reduce significantly the area of developable land at the City and Princess Margaret Rose Hospitals. The values bid by Consort were as detailed in the following Table:

  Site

  Value bid £ million

  City Hospital

  6.640

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  3.725

  Dental Hospital

  0.500

  The values due to the Trust will be different since the values bid for the City and Princess Margaret Rose Hospitals will be subject to an inflation uplift from August 1996 until the date on which the sites are transferred to Consort Healthcare and potentially there may be reductions in the value of the Dental Hospital due to asbestos decontamination and Section 75 planning conditions.

  The estimated total value of the City and Princess Margaret Rose Hospital sites after a 3 per cent. inflation uplift is almost £12 million.

  Furthermore the Trust has entered into Overage Agreements whereby additional payments will be made to the Trust if, in the case of the City and Princess Margaret Rose Hospitals, the construction of houses is in excess of the anticipated number or the use of any part of the site is changed from residential to retail or business use; and, in the case of all three sites, if any undeveloped part of the site is sold for profit.
  136
  The values bid by Consort Healthcare were considered by the Trust to compare favourably to the values prepared by the District Valuer and the Trust's property adviser (Ryden International). The District Valuer and Ryden International's values are detailed in the table.

  £ million

  Site

  District valuer

  Ryden International

  City Hospital

  6.25–7.25

  6.80

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  3.25–3.70

  3.70

  Dental Hospital

  0.50–0.55

  0.35

  The disposal of surplus sites within a PFI deal is the responsibility of the Trust. It is a generally accepted principle of PFI that such sites are included in the PFI deal. The average time taken to dispose of surplus NHS property is about 16 months. Where a site is not sold prior to becoming vacant the NHS has to bear the continuing costs of security and maintenance. I am content that when considered alongside the risks transferred to Consort Healthcare and the reduction in interest charges generated by the prepayment, the Trust has, as demonstrated in the Full Business Case approved by The Scottish Office and HM Treasury, achieved best value for money.

  Research Grants
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown detailing the value of grants made to higher education establishments for the purchase of new research equipment in the current financial year, individually and in total; what funds have already been earmarked(a) in total and (b) by project where already allocated for the next three financial years; and what percentage will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65798]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) makes research grants to institutions to support a basic research capability in Scottish higher education institutions. These grants enable institutions to maintain and develop their research infrastructure. All SHEFC funding will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  The total value of SHEFC research grants in 1998–99 is £118.2 million. Most of this will be allocated to individual institutions selectively on the basis of the quality of research in institutions, as determined by the findings of the UK-wide Research Assessment Exercise. The allocation of this formula research grant (including an element for equipment) to each individual institution is set out in the table.

  For 1998–99

  RAE-based

  University of Aberdeen

  8,462,434

  University of Abertay Dundee

  306,746

  University of Dundee

  9,959,103

  Edinburgh College of Art

  500,649

  University of Edinburgh

  33,489,881

  Glasgow Caledonian University

  937,913

  Glasgow School of Art

  330,912

  University of Glasgow

  21,255,359

  Heriot-Watt University

  4,975,575

  Moray House Institute of Education

  516,478

  137

  For 1998–99

  RAE-based

  Napier University

  808,208

  Northern College of Education

  0

  University of Paisley

  238,220

  Queen Margaret College

  439,136

  Robert Gordon University

  931,987

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  0

  St. Andrew's College of Education

  0

  University of St. Andrews

  7,175,199

  Scottish College of Textiles

  101,416

  University of Stirling

  4,453,386

  University of Strathclyde

  13,622,399

  Total

  108,505,001

  Note:

  This includes higher education institutions which have now merged

  The SHEFC research allocations include a contribution to the UK-wide Joint Research Equipment Initiative, conducted jointly by the Higher Education Funding Councils and the Research Councils. The Council allocated £2.85 million to higher education institutions under this scheme in 1998–99 with joint funders providing a further £3.68 million. (Investments by the Research Councils and joint funders allocated a further £2 million to Scottish higher education institutions in 1998–99 under the JREI.) The Council allocations to higher education institutions are detailed in the table.

  For 1998–99

  JREI

  University of Aberdeen

  641,000

  University of Abertay Dundee

  36,000

  University of Dundee

  81,000

  Edinburgh College of Art

  0

  University of Edinburgh

  375,000

  Glasgow Caledonian University

  0

  Glasgow School of Art

  0

  University of Glasgow

  0

  Heriot-Watt University

  0

  Moray House Institute of Education

  0

  Napier University

  0

  Northern College of Education

  0

  University of Paisley

  155,000

  Queen Margaret College

  0

  Robert Gordon University

  0

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  0

  St. Andrew's College of Education

  0

  University of St. Andrews

  947,000

  Scottish College of Textiles

  0

  University of Stirling

  0

  University of Strathclyde

  615,000

  Total

  2,850,000

  The total sums earmarked for SHEFC funding for the next three years are £588 million, £607 million and £640 million. The Council is currently working on final allocations for 1999–2000, including the split between teaching and research, and will publish details in March. However, included within that total is a new £23 million (£3/5/15 million) component which has been specifically earmarked to improve infrastructure in areas of research excellence aligned to the needs of the Scottish economy.

  The only other major public investment in new research equipment is the Joint Infrastructure Fund, which will invest £600 million over the next two years. This collaborative UK-wide competition is being funded
  138
  jointly by the UK Research Councils and the Wellcome Trust. The UK Research Councils are reserved under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1999.

  School Refurbishments
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in total and by project of over £50,000 the money made available to each local authority for school upgrade and refurbishment projects in real terms in financial years 1992–93 to 1997–98, indicating the allocations already made in the current financial year, and those earmarked for 1999–2000, in total and by project of over £50,000 for school upgrades and refurbishments; what is the total budget available for school upgrades and refurbishments in the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65938]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Such work is funded by the local authorities from the general resources available to them for capital expenditure across a range of services, including educational building. Capital allocations to the authorities, which are, in effect, general borrowing consents, are neither project nor programme specific. However, provision under the Comprehensive Spending Review allows for an increase of £185 million in local authority capital expenditure on school buildings over the three years from April 1999.

  As part of the New Deal for Schools announced in the July 1997 Budget, £115.7 million is being made available to authorities over five years, in addition to the general resources available under the normal capital allocation arrangements, to tackle the backlog of repairs to school buildings and to improve facilities for ICT. These resources are being distributed to authorities on a formula basis through capital grant. The amounts payable to authorities in the 1997–98 and 1998–99 financial years are listed in the table. Project information is not available centrally in the form requested. Authorities have been advised that the distribution under this grant arrangement in 1999–2000 is expected to be broadly the same as in the current year.

  An announcement about the distribution of the general resources available to local authorities for capital expenditure in future years is expected late next month. Capital allocations to local authorities will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Budget 1997—New Deal for Schools capital distribution

  £000

  1997–98 Capital

  1998–99 Capital

  Total for distribution

  8,900,000

  26,700,000

  Aberdeen City

  282

  847

  Aberdeenshire

  385

  1,155

  Angus

  196

  587

  Argyll & Bute

  202

  607

  Borders

  188

  563

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  91

  273

  City of Edinburgh

  556

  1,667

  City of Glasgow

  1,003

  3,008

  Clackmannanshire

  80

  240

  Dunfries & Galloway

  253

  759

  Dundee City

  244

  732

  East Ayrshire

  216

  649

  East Dunbartonshire

  222

  667

  139

  Budget 1997—New Deal for Schools capital distribution

  £000

  1997–98 Capital

  1998–99 Capital

  East Lothian

  137

  412

  East Renfrewshire

  169

  506

  Falkirk

  226

  679

  Fife

  593

  1,778

  Highland

  447

  1,341

  Inverclyde

  179

  537

  Midlothian

  150

  450

  Moray

  165

  495

  North Ayrshire

  263

  788

  North Lanarkshire

  640

  1,919

  Perth & Kinross

  207

  621

  Renfrewshire

  310

  931

  South Ayrshire

  200

  601

  South Lanarkshire

  553

  1,658

  Stirling

  156

  467

  West Dunbartonshire

  186

  557

  West Lothian

  273

  820

  Shetland

  71

  213

  Orkney Islands

  57

  172

  Total

  8,900

  26,700

  Education Research Programmes
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each project of over £10,000 the education research programmes commissioned by his Department in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; what is the total proposed budget for education research projects for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65931]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: A list of the education research projects commissioned over £10,000 in (a) 1997–98, and (b) 1998–99 is set out. No projects have yet been commissioned for 1999–2000:

  Projects Commissioned over £10,000: 1997–98

  School Improvement in Deprived Areas

  Cost of Pre-school Education Provision

  Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) (2nd Stage)

  The Effectiveness of Careers Services

  Teachers Knowledge Needs of Information and Communications Technology

  Commitment and Barriers to Learning

  Quality in Pre-school Education Provision: The Role of Parents

  Quality in Pre-school Education Provision: Staffing and Staff Development

  Research Studentship—Improving School Effectiveness

  Pre-school Education: Supply and Demand

  Assessment Practice for Special Training Needs

  Scottish School Leavers Survey—Special Studies

  Survey of Career Destinations of Contract Researchers

  Evaluation of the Early Intervention Programme

  Institutional Support for Overseas Students (SETEG)

  Projects Commissioned over £10,000: 1998–99

  Impact of Higher Still on Attainment in Core Skills

  Teachers' Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

  Literature Review for the Beattie Committee

  Costs of FE Provision in Rural, Remote and Island Areas in Scotland

  Costs of Partnerships in Initial Teacher Training

  140

  Factors influencing Changes to School Effectiveness

  Higher Still Evaluation—Survey of HE Staff, Careers Officers, Trainers and Employers

  Pre-school Provision in Rural Areas

  New Entrants to FE

  Distribution of FE Provision

  Impact of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Initiatives

  OECD Survey of Student Achievement in Reading, Maths and Science at Age 15

  Higher Still Evaluation—Survey of School and FE Staff

  Higher Still Evaluation—Cohort Study

  Developments in Pre-school Education

  Review of Partnership in Pre-school Education

  Scottish School Leavers Survey of 22/23 Year Olds in 1999

  Baseline Survey of Parents Demand for Childcare.

  The total proposed budget for education research projects over each of the next three financial years is £947k per annum. This budget will come under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Knee and Hip Joint Replacements
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the average waiting times for each health board for(a) knee and (b) hip joint replacement operations for September (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [66887]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The mean waiting time for knee and hip joint replacement operations for the years ending 30 September 1997 and 30 September 1998 for each Health Board in Scotland is provided in the table.

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

  Knee and hip joint replacement operations carried out by NHS in Scotland—mean waiting times area of residence

  Knee joint replacement Year ending 30 September

  Hip joint replacement Year ending 30 September

  Health Board

  1997

  11998

  1997

  11998

  Argyll and Clyde

  177

  181

  159

  141

  Ayrshire and Arran

  104

  117

  100

  119

  Borders

  88

  109

  82

  113

  Dumfries and Galloway

  206

  165

  158

  134

  Fife

  105

  143

  104

  130

  Forth Valley

  243

  223

  155

  192

  Grampian

  95

  95

  86

  63

  Greater Glasgow

  200

  222

  173

  205

  Highland

  198

  211

  193

  178

  Lanarkshire

  135

  126

  118

  108

  Lothian

  151

  161

  136

  141

  Orkney

  57

  77

  51

  60

  Shetland

  105

  109

  102

  115

  Tayside

  140

  159

  125

  123

  Western Isles

  66

  67

  77

  110

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  ISD Scotland

  Class Sizes
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) number and (b) percentage of children in primary (i) one, (ii) two and (iii) three were in classes of 31 or more in September 1998 (1) in total and (2) by local authority. [66889]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested will not be available until mid February. I will write to the hon.

  March 1997

  September 1997

  March 1998

  September 1998

  Central

  686

  683

  703

  710

  Dumfries and Galloway

  412

  424

  439

  445

  Fife

  831

  845

  855

  850

  Grampian

  1,173

  1,189

  1,193

  1,214

  Lothian and Borders

  2,691

  2,689

  2,691

  2,641

  Northern

  649

  651

  657

  659

  Strathclyde

  7,231

  7,326

  7,299

  7,233

  Tayside

  1,116

  1,126

  1,143

  1,154

  Total

  14,789

  14,933

  14,980

  14,906

  Housing Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the estimated Scottish Office housing budget in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [66890]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Planned expenditure, from the Scottish Office budget, on housing over the next three years is shown in the table. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  £ million

  Cash terms

  1998–99 prices

  1999–2000

  512

  500

  2000–01

  622

  592

  2001–02

  640

  594

  NHS in Scotland: Number of patients with a Patient's Charter Guarantee who waited more than 12 months for inpatient and day case treatment

  Health board of residence

  31 March 1997

  30 June 1977

  30 September 1997

  31 December 1997

  31 March 1998

  30 June 1998

  30 September 1998

  Argyll and Clyde

  2

  26

  21

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  15

  2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Borders

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  1

  7

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow

  1

  98

  191

  345

  —

  —

  —

  Highland

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian

  1

  3

  15

  33

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other/Unknown

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  22

  142

  235

  394

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  ISD Scotland
  142
  Member at that time and arrange to have a copy of my letter placed in the Library. From 1 July this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Police Officers
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police officers there were in each force in Scotland in(a) March 1997, (b) September 1997, (c) March 1998 and (d) September 1998. [66888]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information is shown in the table.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS patients have been waiting over 12 months for their NHS operation(a) by health board and (b) by quarter from March 1997. [67364]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The number of patients with a Patient's Charter guarantee who waited over 12 months for inpatient and day case treatment, by Health Board area, on the dates requested, is provided in the following table.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  143
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS patients were waiting to be(a) seen following GP written referral and (b) following referral to consultation, for each quarter since 30 March 1997. [67362]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on waiting lists is collected centrally only for hospital inpatients and day cases. Data are available on first outpatient referrals and the length of time that patients waited for their first outpatient appointment. The percentage of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within nine weeks and 18 weeks following a General Medical Practitioner/ General Dental Practitioner referral for each quarter since March 1997, is provided in the table.

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

  NHS in Scotland: Percentage of patients waiting within 9 weeks and 18 weeks for a first outpatient appointment

  Date

  Percentage waiting within 9 weeks

  Percentage waiting within 18 weeks

  31 March 1997

  70.7

  91.2

  30 June 1997

  72.3

  93.2

  30 September 1997

  66.5

  91.7

  31 December 1997

  67.1

  89.7

  31 March 1998

  68.3

  90.2

  30 June 1998

  68.9

  91.5

  30 September 19981

  64.6

  89.8

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Form SMR0/SMR01, ISD Scotland

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British Consul General in Aden first learnt of the detention of the five British citizens being detained in Aden. [66685]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Yemeni officials first mentioned on 29 December that they had arrested some, unnamed, British nationals. The Yemeni authorities confirmed the names and details of the five British nationals on 7 January.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of British visitors to Yemen in each of the last three years. [66945]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are no reliable estimates available for the number of British visitors to Yemen.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase the number of diplomatic personnel at the British mission in Yemen. [66942]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None at present.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department first learnt that the five detainees in Yemen had been charged. [66940]
  144
  Mr. Fatchett
  In the afternoon of 15 January the British Consul General in Aden reported that four of the men had been charged and the fifth was due to be charged later that night. Our Consul General confirmed on 16 January that the fifth man had been charged late on 15 January.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British Consul General in Aden met each of the five detainees in Yemen. [66939]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Consul General in Aden visited Shahid Butt, Ghulam Hussein and Sarmad Ahmed on 8 January and Mohssen Ghailan on 9 January. He visited Malik Nasser Harhara, who is a British/Yemeni dual national on 14 January. He is pressing for recurring consular access.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals he estimates live in Yemen. [66944]

  Mr. Fatchett
  According to our latest Annual Consular Return dated 1997, there were approximately 350 British Nationals resident in Yemen. The current figure is believed to be in the region of 400.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to gain access to a doctor for the five detainees in Aden. [66941]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary telephoned Prime Minister Iriyani on 14 January to register our concern about complaints of ill-treatment and torture, and asked for access to the detainees by an independent doctor. Mr. Iriyani undertook to work for a positive response. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State asked for access when she met the Yemeni Ambassador on 13 January. Our Embassy continues to raise the matter daily with the Yemeni authorities.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and how he first learnt of the kidnap of two Britons in Yemen on 17 January. [66938]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Netherlands Embassy in Sana'a notified our Embassy at 1500 hours local time on 17 January that a Dutch family and Mr. and Mrs. Rosser had not returned to Sana'a as expected. A few hours later their vehicles were found abandoned 180 kms north of Sana'a. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was immediately informed.

  Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication the Government have had with the Australian Government since 1975 concerning investigations into the deaths of Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie; and if he will make a statement. [66850]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Australian government have taken the lead on this issue as the two British journalists, one New Zealander and two Australians killed at Balibo, East Timor, in 1975 were based in Australia and worked for Australian television companies. We keep in regular contact with the Australian government and welcome their
  145
  decision to refer recent new material on the killings, to Mr. Tom Sherman, who conducted the comprehensive 1996 report on Balibo, for his consideration.

  During my meeting in Jakarta in October 1998, I raised the Balibo incident with President Habibi, who promised to look into the matter further.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policies the British Government intend to pursue with a view to ensuring that future decisions of the United Nations Security Council are upheld. [66739]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that the authority and decisions of the Security Council are upheld. The policies to be pursued will depend on the UN decisions concerned.

  Honorary Consuls
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the conditions of service and method of appointment of honorary consuls. [66869]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Prospective Honorary Consuls are nominated by Heads of Mission and their appointment is approved by the Head of Consular Division in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The candidates are usually individuals of some standing in the local community. They may be foreign nationals.

  Honorary Consuls are not salaried employees. They give their time free of charge and receive a honorarium; the maximum currently is £1,835. They may claim certain admissible expenses e.g. official postage. Their consular functions are carried out from their private or business address. Generally no payment is made from official funds towards rent.

  Honorary Consuls perform statutory and non-statutory functions. Statutory functions include duties under the Merchant Shipping Acts, notarial acts, and levying of Consular Fees. Non-Statutory duties include protecting the interests of British nationals, particularly those in distress; and promoting British commercial interests. They do not register births and deaths or issue standard passports. They are not expected to undertake political reporting or information work.

  Honorary Consul appointments are for a period of five years and may be terminated by either side giving not less than one months's notice. At the end of the initial term and subsequent five year terms, the appointment may be renewed subject to the exigencies of the public service and provided the Head of Mission is satisfied with the incumbent's performance. The retirement age is 65.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many honorary consuls are in post. [66868]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are 242 Honorary Consults in 90 countries.
  146
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many honorary consuls are currently employed by the UK owned(a) tobacco, (b) armaments and (c) other industries with commercial interests in the host country. [66870]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Most Honorary Consuls are business people. A breakdown of their activity or type of employment is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Yugoslav authorities in respect of the massacre at Racak. [66947]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Acting on the instructions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the UK Chargé in Belgrade took action on 17 January on behalf of the EU members of the Contact Group to express condemnation of the Racak killings to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Belgrade, and to call for the withdrawal of the forces then in Racak, full compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions and the agreements entered into by President Milosevic last October, access to Kosovo for the Chief Prosecutor of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the suspension of police and army officers in the Racak area on 15 January. The UK Chargé also joined in an EU demarche to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 18 January which made similar points. That same day a senior official of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office saw the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and made clear to him that we condemn the killings at Racak and stressed the need for the authorities in Belgrade to comply with the demands of the international community, also handing him a copy of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's Statement to the House that afternoon, 18 January 1999,Official Report, columns 565–67.

  The UK has also played an active role in deliberations of the UN Security Council, the OSCE, NATO and the EU leading to the clear statements issued by those bodies in reaction to the Racak killings. The authorities in Belgrade can be in no doubt of our condemnation of what happened, and our view of the action which now needs to be taken.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Yugoslavian Ambassador in respect of the massacre at Racak. [66948]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A senior official of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office saw the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 18 January, and made clear to him that we condemn the killings at Racak and stressed the need for the authorities in Belgrade to comply with the demands of the international community, also handing him a copy of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's Statement to the House that afternoon, 18 January 1999,Official Report, columns 565–67. Together with EU colleagues, the UK Chargé in Belgrade has taken similar action.

  BBC World Service
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what stage discussions with the BBC World Service have reached in relation to their three year plan; and if he will make a statement. [67106]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The BBC World Service is drawing up its strategic plan for the next three years. The BBC are considering their priorities in the light of political, technological and commercial developments, given the increase in World Service funding of on average 3.8 per cent. in each year over the 1998–99 level. We expect detailed proposals to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary soon.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish six-monthly reports on progress towards a resolution of the conflict in Kashmir. [67039]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our view is that it is primarily for India and Pakistan to reach a solution over Kashmir although we have regularly repeated our willingness to assist if that is what the parties wish. We do not believe that publication of progress reports will help towards a settlement.

  Swathi Pankhania
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis the entry clearance officer in Bombay is calling for additional evidence in the case of Swathi Pankhania, HO Ref. S787788. [67235]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit will be writing shortly to my hon. Friend to inform him of the outcome of this case.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that the entry clearance officer in Bombay is informed of his letters to the hon. Member for Leicester, East in respect of the case of Swathi Pankhania, Ref S787788. [67233]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no record of having sent any letter to my hon. Friend about the case of Swathi Pankhania. However, we have seen reference to a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), to my hon. Friend, dated 11 August 1998.

  Iraq
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a mechanism has existed for British members of the UN Weapons Inspection Team in Iraq to provide intelligence information to Her Majesty's Government and its agencies. [67051]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government have made clear that all information exchanges between the UK and UNSCOM have been strictly in pursuit of UNSCOM' s mandate to dismantle Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction capability.
  148
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances British members of the UN Weapons Inspection Team in Iraq carried out tasks in that country beyond those required by the UN. [67020]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None. All activities carried out by UK nationals serving as UNSCOM inspectors have been strictly in pursuit of UNSCOM's mandate to dismantle Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction capability.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the talks by his Department's Director for the Middle East and North Africa with the Government of Iran about the Iraq situation. [67354]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The FCO Director for the Middle East and North Africa visited Iran on 13–14 January for talks with Deputy Foreign Minister Sarmadi, Deputy Foreign Minister Zarif and the Director General for Western Europe, Mr. Qasemi. The Director briefed the Iranians on our thinking on the way forward on Iraq, focusing on activity in the Security Council, particularly on weapons of mass destruction issues, and the need to respond to the humanitarian situation.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the objectives of Her Majesty's Government policy on Iraq. [67275]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As a permanent member of the Security Council, our main objective is to ensure that Iraq complies with its obligations under UN resolutions. This is in line with the parallel aim of protecting the UK's interests both in the region and more widely. In pursuit of those objectives we are discussing with other Security Council members how to move forward, both on the key outstanding disarmament questions and on the humanitarian issues.

  Al Shifa Factory, Khartoum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he received from the Ambassador to the Sudan following his visit to the Al Shifa factory prior to the US air strike. [67643]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Ambassador has visited the Al Shifa factory only once, for the official opening in July 1997. There was no reporting following this ceremonial occasion.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the basis for his oral statement of 19 January 1999,Official Report, column 705, that Senator Pinochet could not be permitted to return to Chile without the Government defying the courts and ending due legal process. [67311]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) asked whether it would not have been better to send Senator Pinochet to face due process in Chile. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's reply was on the basis that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary issued an Authority to Proceed in respect of the Spanish request and that this has been passed to Bow Street Magistrates court to consider
  149
  committal. Issues relating to state immunity are currently being heard by the House of Lords. Due legal process is being followed.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 19 January 1999, Official Report, column 701, if he will indicate the location in the Official Report of the answer to which he referred. [67633]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to set the record straight. I was incorrect in my belief that the answer was in the Official Report. I have written to the hon. Member to apologise for this inadvertent mistake.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department was first contacted by Scotland Yard concerning the question of the diplomatic immunity status of Senator Pinochet. [67625]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Metropolitan Police contacted the FCO about Senator Pinochet's diplomatic immunity on 16 October.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department was asked for help by the Chilean Embassy in London in arranging a flight to Santiago for Senator Pinochet in the week beginning 12 October 1998. [67634]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Chilean Ambassador telephoned the FCO on 15 October to discuss Senator Pinochet's travel arrangements. FCO officials referred the Ambassador to British Airways. On 16 October, the Ambassador informed the FCO that he had secured a seat for Senator Pinochet on the British Airways flight leaving for Santiago on 20 October.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department received from the Chilean Embassy on 16 October 1998. [67631]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Chilean Ambassador telephoned the FCO on 16 October to follow up a conversation the previous day about Senator Pinochet's travel arrangements. The Ambassador informed officials that he had secured a seat for Senator Pinochet on a British Airways flight leaving for Santiago on 20 October.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 508, for what reasons Mr. Penfold did not use the communication facilities at the German Embassy to communicate with London. [67626]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Whilst Mr. Penfold was in Conakry he received a number of classified telegrams via the German Embassy. He did not use these facilities for sending reports to London. He has said it was not necessary. A commercial fax facility was available at his hotel and allowed him to communicate with London directly.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 150
  18 January, Official Report, column 347, on St. Helena, if he will state the reason for Mr. Timmreck being the subject of an exclusion order by the Governor of St. Helena; and what right of appeal is available to him. [67353]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The then Chief Secretary of the Government of St. Helena gave full reasons for the exclusion order to Mr. Timmreck in a letter dated 4 March 1994. If Mr. Timmreck' s permission were obtained by the hon. Member for Wrexham, I would arrange for him to receive a copy of the letter.

  I understand that Mr. Timmreck has applied to the Governor for the exclusion order to be revoked. This was considered. Mr. Timmreck was asked for more information which he has not yet furnished.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to provide St. Helena with landing facilities for aircraft. [67118]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1998 we agreed to fund a preliminary desk study into the technical feasibility of an airlink to St. Helena. The final report is due by Easter. If this is positive, we will fund a broader feasibility study of the engineering, economic financial and social considerations.

  Iran
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Iran. [67276]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The New York agreement of September 1998 has allowed a welcome improvement in relations between the United Kingdom and Iran. We will continue to look for ways of strengthening relations further in areas of mutual interest while also pressing, with our EU partners, for improvements in Iranian policies which give us particular concern.

  Dependent Territories
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the laws on homosexuals in dependent territories will be changed. [67569]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Homosexual acts remain an offence in the five Caribbean Overseas Territories. We have pointed out to the Governments of these Territories that their legislation must comply with the international obligations which Britain has extended to them, and that, in the absence of local reforms in this area, we may have to impose appropriate legislation by Order in Council.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK overseas territories have brought their law on human rights in line with that of the UK since May 1997. [67566]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There are three human rights issues on which the laws of some of the UK's Overseas Territories differ substantively from those of the UK; capital punishment for murder (though only in Bermuda), judicial corporal punishment, and the law relating to homosexual acts. Since May 1997 three Overseas
  151
  Territories have abolished judicial corporal punishment. No other human rights legislation has been enacted in the Overseas Territories since May 1997.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the White Paper on Dependent Territories. [67565]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We expect that the White Paper will be published shortly. Preparation for the Paper has involved wide ranging consultation on a broad range of subjects. It has been a complex process now drawing to a close.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has given to UK diplomatic posts abroad regarding the promotion of tobacco products. [67568]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Following last month's White Paper, this Department is preparing guidelines for posts.

  EU Meetings
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the EU for the period until 31 March and the major EU meetings for the period until the end of the German presidency. [67620]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the European Calendar: January-June 1999, which was deposited in the Libraries of the House on 14 January 1999.

  Referendums (EU Funds)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conclusions he has reached from his consideration of the Neill Committee's recommendations on the conduct of referendums, with particular reference to the distribution of European Community funds. [66144]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government will announce their conclusions on these issues when they publish a draft Bill, to implement the main findings of the Neill report, before the summer recess.

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

Tributes to Lord Denning
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who reached the great age of 100 last Saturday. Born on 23rd January 1899, he was educated at Andover Grammar School and Magdalen, Oxford. He saw service on the Western Front in France from 1917 to 1918. He was called to the Bar in 1921, took Silk in 1938, became a High Court judge in 1946 at the age of 45 and went to the Court of Appeal in 1949. He came to this House in 1957 and in 1962 became Master of the Rolls, an office that he occupied for 20 years until 1982 when he resigned in his 84th year.
He was appointed by Her Majesty to the Order of Merit in November 1997 in succession to Sir Isaiah Berlin. Only one other lawyer this century has been similarly honoured, my distinguished predecessor Lord Haldane.
The noble and learned Lord ranks in distinction with the greatest judges this century in the common law world: Lords Atkin, Reid and Devlin in the United Kingdom, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo and Felix Frankfurter in the United States, and Owen Dixon in Australia. His contribution to the development of the law in this country has been vast. He is a lawyer of massive intellect, erudition and imagination. True, there were some maverick decisions, but when he adopted an unorthodox line, as he often did, he was frequently vindicated by later decisions or even statute.
Throughout his long public service as a judge he displayed an acute sense of justice as a moral value and of law as the protector of the rights of the little man. He was in the van in the post-war development of administrative law. Government's discretionary powers were to be exercised within the framework of the rule of law. The individual's rights were not to be overridden at the whim of those in authority.
He invented the concept of the deserted wife's equity in the matrimonial home. In commercial law he was ahead of the field in appreciating that the law should impose liability for negligent misstatements where the maker assumed responsibility for their accuracy. Whole new doctrines now accepted were developed by him. Almost single-handedly he invented the concept of a pre-judgment court order to prevent defendants dissipating their assets before judgment could be given against them.
Throughout most of his career he was probably the only judge of whom the mass of the population had ever heard. His judgments were models of lucidity. He wrote
794
in simple pungent prose that anyone could understand. He humanised the law and freed it from anachronistic precedents. He was an evangelist without equal for the common law throughout the Commonwealth. He was also a model of how a judge should behave: unfailingly courteous, understanding and expressing counsel's arguments better than they could themselves.

I have an abiding memory of the noble and learned Lord's kindness to litigants in person in his Court of Appeal. Most of the time he had to turn them down but they always left feeling that they had had a fair hearing and therefore justice. The noble and learned Lord is one of the greatest living Englishmen. On behalf of the whole House I salute him today.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ackner: My Lords, essentially on the basis of alphabetical merit, I rise to associate the judges with everything that my noble and learned friend said. The senior Law Lord and his colleagues are hard at work and accordingly they are not here to reply.
Having reached the age of anecdotage, perhaps your Lordships will allow me one short story about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The Canadian Bar Association used to invite a judge to its excellent get-together. I was one who was so invited. Some years later I was told that a number of very young Canadian lawyers were visiting the high spots of Europe and wanted, no doubt for good fiscal reasons, to have a serious party. I laid on a garden party in the Middle Temple. All of the judges who attended that party had been guests of the Canadian Bar Association. Tom Denning had been several times. One very young Canadian lawyer pulled me by the sleeve and asked, "Is that Lord Denning?" I said, "Yes, that's Lord Denning". "Gee", he confided in me, "Do you know we still read his father's judgments?". I repressed saying that perhaps the father is more reliable than the son.
I therefore join with all the judges who last Friday wished the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, many, many happy returns.

Rail Freight: Local Transport Plans
2.43 p.m.
Lord Cadman Lord Cadman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why there was no mention made of rail freight in the draft guidance document issued to local authorities by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of their obligation to produce a local transport plan by July 1999.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that rail freight is given proper consideration within local transport plans. We acknowledge that the draft guidance was incomplete when we issued it. Our priority was to circulate interim advice sufficient to enable authorities to make a start on their plans.

795
There are gaps in the draft guidance. Those will be covered in the revised version including advice on how local authorities can encourage rail freight transport.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister agree that it was a serious omission, given the investment presently being made in the rail freight industry with its consequential increase in tonnage carried? Can the noble Baroness enlighten the House further on the Government's plans to encourage and persuade local authorities to provide within their local transport plans facilities for rail freight as identified by the rail freight industry?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lords' question allows me to state publicly how pleased we are that the doubling of expenditure on freight grants to £30 million in our first year in office has resulted in a very great increase in the use of rail freight.
We shall issue revised planning guidance to facilitate the moving of more freight by rail. Local authorities will be expected to consider and protect opportunities for rail connections to industrial sites. We are delighted to give the support that the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a rail freight group. I welcome the noble Lord's Question and the Minister's Answer.
When the revised guidance is issued, I hope that my noble friend and her colleagues will take into account the need for other types of freight transport, including road freight. There is little in the document about deliveries to shops, factories or offices. Much is written about re-allocation of road space and motorists responding in many ways. When the document is reissued, I hope that my noble friend will take into account that the number of people on buses, bicycles and walking need to be counted rather than the number of cars.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the guidance acknowledges, local authorities must consider measures to promote walking and cycling. They could include the reallocation of road space. I am delighted to say that the detailed guidance will draw attention to the importance of local transport plans, including the follow-through connections from road to rail to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to quantify her phrase "a very great increase in the use of rail freight" as a result of the increased grants to which she referred?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to know that government action coupled with the work of the freight companies—they provided their own ambitious targets—has reversed the previous decline. We saw a
796
12 per cent. growth in freight tonne kilometres on the railways during 1997–98—the first such increase in many years.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that rail freight is likely to be used for medium or long distances, and the former government's destruction of the regional or metropolitan local authorities, will the regional development authorities be the lead authorities in terms of rail freight; and will they receive appropriate planning guidance from the Government?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the fragmentation which occurred in the recent past. The strategic framework for local plans will be provided by the regional transport strategy contained in regional planning guidance. Those strategies will ensure a coherent and complementary approach across and between regions.
The closest possible co-operation with the regional development agencies will ensure that the system is integrated.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the Minister's Answer which recognises that there was a gap in the guidance. Will the noble Baroness tell us when the revised version will be published and what its effect will be? The noble Baroness's experience in local government is similar to mine. Does she agree that the rational and excellent working relationship between officers in local government, in particular transport authorities, is of value and should not be wasted? Will the noble Baroness confirm that, as part of an integrated transport policy, local authorities must do the same as national authorities and sing to the same tune?
A noble Lord: Reading!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: No, my Lords, I am not reading.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am reading! I fully agree with the noble Baroness that it is extremely important to pay tribute to the work of officers. She asked when there would be final guidance on local transport plans. We intend to produce revised guidance early in the spring, and final guidance towards the end of the year once we have had a chance to look at the provisional plans submitted in the summer. We have listened carefully to local authority representations, made through the Local Government Association, about timing and authorities have been asked to produce provisional five-year plans by July 1999. Authorities will then roll their plans on by one year and submit full plans for the subsequent four years.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I applaud the increase of 12 per cent., to which the Minister referred in answer to

797
my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, but can she advise the House of the percentage figure for rail in the overall carriage of freight?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not able to give that percentage figure as a whole. I shall be delighted to write to the noble Lord giving such figures as are available. I assume that he refers to the whole of the UK and it will take time to collate information from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as well as England.

Carbon Tax
2.51 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered introducing a carbon tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are not in favour of introducing new taxes on domestic fuel and power. With regard to business, the Government are considering the recommendations of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, on The role of economic instruments and the business use of energy in the context of their wider strategy on climate change.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, in addition to considering the very valuable recommendations of the Marshall Report, will the Minister note the findings of an authoritative article in the November issue of Fiscal Studies, which I am sure he peruses avidly from cover to cover? It demonstrates that if the proceeds of a carbon tax, or other energy taxes, were used to reduce employment taxes there would be a significant increase in GDP, employment and the disposable income of all social groups. Will the Minister draw those findings to the attention of the Treasury?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is hinting obliquely that carbon taxes as applied to domestic households are regressive in tax terms and that the Institute of Fiscal Studies is suggesting ways in which that regressive nature of such taxes could be reversed. It is a useful suggestion and I will indeed draw it to the attention of the Treasury.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may make a useful suggestion. If a carbon tax were levied could part of it be ring-fenced in order to make a contribution to the planting of trees on marginal land in this country? Trees are known to absorb carbon, they are beautiful and they serve a useful function.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree that that is a useful suggestion. We are being most constructive this afternoon. However, I am not sure whether the question is intended to refer to carbon tax across the board; in other words, including domestic households. If, like us, the noble Countess is looking principally at the different taxes for business on fuel and
798
power, the intention would be that the revenues would be recycled to business. However, that would include energy efficiency purposes. If the noble Countess can persuade the Government that planting trees is an energy efficient use of public money I have no doubt that she will go far.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, a carbon tax is a concept with which the House will instinctively have sympathy. Of course, it is a novel idea and still capable of a great deal of development. May I invite the Minister to explain clearly the distinction between a carbon tax and a fuel duty?
I understand the Minister's argument about the need to distinguish between taxing business and the domestic sector. Bearing in mind that about 30 per cent. of the nation's energy demand comes from the domestic sector, does he consider that the distinction is wholly appropriate? Does he also believe that a variation might have to be made bearing in mind the need for all sectors to make a contribution towards the most effective use of energy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in inviting me to give a definition, the noble Lord is inviting me to over-simplify. I must do so in order to follow his invitation. Broadly speaking, a fuel duty is intended primarily to raise money. On the other hand, presumably a carbon tax is intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide which are measured in millions of tonnes of carbon. It would be calculated on the basis of a million tonnes of carbon emitted into the atmosphere rather than on a fund-raising basis. I am sorry, I have forgotten the second part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the second question related to the need for the most effective use of energy in the domestic sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord's figures. Emissions from the domestic sector account for about 25 per cent. rather than 30 per cent. of the total. They are, on the whole, stable, whereas emissions from industry, which is 40 per cent. of the total, are declining. The area where emissions are rising is transport. If we are to meet the criteria as laid down, and our own obligations under the Kyoto protocol, it is clear that industry and transport will have to bear the brunt of the burden.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given that six members of the EU already have a carbon tax and that if one were to introduce a carbon tax in this country it would be unfortunate if British industry were put at a disadvantage, this is one area in which the harmonisation of taxation across the EU could be helpful in achieving a major public policy goal; namely, achieving our targets under the Kyoto protocol.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's premise or his conclusion. Yes, it is true that six countries in the EU—mainly Scandinavian countries—have a carbon tax. However,

799
I have made it clear that we would not accept a carbon tax for domestic households because of the regressive nature of such a tax. However, we believe that it is possible to meet our obligations under the Kyoto protocol partially by taxes on industry and transport and partly by increased efforts in energy efficiency. That is a very important target and includes combined heat and power. Furthermore, by 2008 there will be available the possibility of tradeable emission permits to which the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, referred in his report and which we are studying very carefully.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, given that the Government are anti-global warming, how do they justify the moratorium on combined cycle gas turbine power stations and the continuation of coal-fired power stations, the latter of which emit more carbon?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no single solution which will meet all possible objectives. The moratorium on the use of gas for non-premium uses, to which the noble Viscount is referring, cannot be continued for ever. The disruption of our sources of energy which has resulted from the precipitate rush to gas-fired power stations is dangerous. For that reason, we called for a moratorium and are thinking carefully about alternatives.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's argument that a carbon tax or a tax on energy used by households may well be regressive. However, is he convinced that that is a decisive argument? It would be true to say that all sorts of efficiency-raising measures may be regressive, but why do we have an income tax and a social security system and then worry about indirect taxes when it comes to regression? Surely we could offset this simply through income tax and the social security system if efficiency gains resulted as well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend uses the careful word "decisive". I do not say it is an overwhelming argument, but the Government's decision to reduce VAT on domestic use of fuel and power to 5 per cent. was a change which benefited all households and not just those who pay income tax. My noble friend's alternative would not apply to the poorest households, and for that reason I insist that we are against regressive taxation.
Lord McNair: My Lords, while the Minister is considering the helpful suggestion of my noble friend Lord Taverne, will he consider also the possibility of replacing all direct taxation with unified national indirect taxation based on primary energy at the point where it first comes into the system? That enables a basic income to be paid which would solve the problem of his noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course, we will consider anything. I believe that that suggestion first came forward in the 1950s in a book by
800
I. M. D. Little called The Price of Fuel. My noble friend Lord Peston will confirm whether or not I am right on that. It is therefore a suggestion which has been around for a considerable time.

Ministerial Code: Paragraph 88
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether paragraph 88, on contacts with the media, in the Ministerial Code issued on 31st July 1997 applies to unattributable briefings by Ministers' special advisers and their information officers.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, in order to ensure the effective presentation of government policy, paragraph 88 of the Ministerial Code requires all major interviews and media appearances to be cleared with the No. 10 Press Office.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. However, as paragraph 88 requires all media contacts by both Ministers and officials to be recorded, have records been obtained for the information of the Cabinet Minister described as the "enforcer" of briefings alleged to be undermining the positions of other Ministers? Could such rival briefings have been avoided if the removal had not been secured of the chief information officers in six departments in the first six months in office of this Government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, departments keep records of contacts with media for major interviews and media appearances. A record is also kept of occasions when officials provide background briefings to journalists. It would be impractical to keep a record of all contacts, whether on the record or off the record, since some would be informal. It is not appropriate for those records to be looked at in relation to the issues referred to by the noble Lord; they would deal with the sorts of records to which I have just referred. The issue concerning the six government information officers was looked into by a committee in another place and no criticism was made of the Government in relation to it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does that mean that the rigour of paragraph 88 has been relaxed since the debate initiated by me on 28th October 1997 to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replied most helpfully at that time? There does appear to have been a change.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there has been no change to the terms of paragraph 88 in the Ministerial Code or to the extent to which it is enforced. The requirement in that paragraph is for major interviews and media to be cleared in advance by No. 10. By their nature those interviews will be on the

801
record. As I indicated a moment ago, a record is also kept of occasions when officials provide background briefings to journalists. That is the scope of the rule and it is enforced.

Committee of Selection: Select Committee
3.5 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Henley be appointed to serve as a member of the committee in the place of the Viscount Cranborne.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

COMMENCEMENT
(" .—(1) This Act (apart from this section) shall not come into force until the conditions set out in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied.
(2) The first condition is—

(a) that the NIRS2 computer system on which national insurance contributions are to be held is fully operational; and

(b) that all such contributions records have been successfully installed on that computer system.

(3) The second condition is that, on the day on which an order to bring this Act (or any provision of it) into force is made, no social security benefit payments which depend on national insurance contributions records shall be outstanding for more than one month.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to deal with matters we debated to some extent at the Committee stage of the Bill and also in the uprating order debates which we had last week. The amendment, together with Amendment No. 29 to which it is linked, relates to the problems which have arisen with regard to the National Insurance Contributions Agency's computer. In particular, it raises the question of whether or not it is appropriate, under the terms of the Bill, to transfer the responsibility for contribution matters from the Department of Social Security to the Inland Revenue.
At Committee stage I raised a number of points in this context and, as I mentioned, we debated this also last Thursday. The amendment seeks to impose conditions so that the transfer should not take place from one department to another until the department from which the computer is being transferred has sorted out the substantial problems which it now emerges exist in the department. It seems clearly inappropriate to
802
switch it from one department to another and from one Minister to another without the situation having been rectified. The amendment therefore suggests that it should not be done until the national insurance computer system, which is concerned with contributions, is fully operational; until all contribution records are fully installed on the computer; and until the payments as a result of those contributions are not more than one month in arrears.
Amendment No. 29 is somewhat similar but in a simpler form. It simply seeks to delay the date when the transfer takes place in order to give the Government an opportunity to put right what is obviously a serious situation.
I should begin, as on many previous occasions, by declaring an interest since some of these matters are related to pensions and I am a chairman of a company pension fund. Furthermore, I want to express our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for the courtesy she has shown in replying in correspondence to a number of points raised at Committee stage. It may be helpful to get some of those points on the record. Two in particular are quite simple.
First, confusion arose—largely as a result of my misunderstanding of the situation—as to whether the responsibility for these matters would be transferred from Department of Social Security Ministers to Inland Revenue and Treasury officials. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that that is not so. "Treasury" in this context means the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury, which includes the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Treasury Ministers. Incidently, it also includes the Whips. Whether they are qualified to deal with these matters I have some doubt; nevertheless that is the situation.
Secondly, the Minister gave an assurance, which I think is important, that, because the laws affecting the Inland Revenue are different from those affecting the Department of Social Security, no one will be made a criminal retrospectively as a result of these changes.
We want to clarify a number of points. Last Thursday, in Committee, I posed a series of questions. With her customary expertise, the Minister was able to reply to some of them on the spot; others remain outstanding. First, what is the situation regarding this computer in relation to others? If I understand correctly the Minister's answers so far, she is saying that this particular computer has gone down but that that does not affect the Inland Revenue's computer, or that for social security benefits. The Minister pointed out that that affects only half of the total expenditure of the Department of Social Security. If I understand the situation correctly, it follows that the other half—that is, half the social security benefits being paid—is apparently affected by the breakdown of the computer. The Minister shakes her head. I based that point of view on what she said in Committee. No doubt she will want to clarify the matter. We need to be clear about the exact relationship between the various computers.
Secondly, we need to be clear about when the computer went wrong. I understand that it was last June. However, we are not in the least clear about when the

803
Government expect it to be put right. Meanwhile, there are considerable problems. People who might otherwise have expected to be paid pensions or increases in their pensions do not know where they stand. One of the reasons why we on this side of the House believe that the matter should be sorted out before the computer is transferred—indeed, before the functions of the Contributions Agency are transferred—is that we are concerned not only about whether the computer is wrong but also about what is being done to tell people what is happening. When I raised that question in Committee, the Minister said, "Well, there's a problem there: we don't know who the people are because the computer has broken down". That becomes a circular argument.
Although, as I understand it, the department has a helpline and it is possible for people to ring in, nonetheless no proactive attempt has been made to tell those affected what is going on. If I am mistaken on that, no doubt the noble Baroness will correct me. Some people are told that if they have problems, they can go on income support. Apparently, that is on a different computer. At least they will have that fall-back position, but clearly it is not satisfactory.
That brings me to the question not only of the number of people affected and the amounts, but of the particular groups. If I understand correctly, people who are already receiving their pension are not affected. However, people who are about to receive their pension but are not yet in receipt of it are not affected. Those affected also include those who asked for their pension payment to be deferred from one year to another. They receive a somewhat higher pension if that happens. However, having asked for their pension to be paid (having earlier deferred it), they may find that it is not paid for some months.
That, in turn, raises other issues. If they have not been paid, do they receive the uprating which we debated last week? In particular, are they to be compensated? I understand that they will receive a degree of compensation. It would be helpful for those people and the public at large to know what the compensation will be. How much will it amount to? Will it be taxable? To what extent will the rate of interest which will apparently be paid by way of contribution, because people have not been paid the pension to which they are entitled, compare with the rate of interest which the Inland Revenue charges those who do not pay their tax on time?
One associated problem is that people will not know whether to include on this year's tax form the increase or pension they were expecting or whether to wait until next year to include that information. Given the stringent way in which the self-assessment system has been introduced, I do not think that it is fair for people to be penalised for simply not knowing. What information has been given to the public about that?
The situation overall gives cause for concern. As far as the pure mechanics of the issue are concerned, I understand that the Public Accounts Committee in another place will probably take evidence today on the matter. However, we are concerned with a broader issue.
804
Given that this situation has arisen, to what extent are the Government taking appropriate action both to compensate those affected and to ensure that they know what is going on? Until this is sorted out, there seems to be a strong argument for saying that it was not appropriate to go ahead and switch the whole system from one department to another.
Broadly speaking, that outlines the purpose of the amendments. As I have said, the alternative amendment to Amendment No. 1 is Amendment No. 29, which says, "Let's give it a year or so, by which time things will, we hope, have been resolved". It is important that the matter should be put right rather than put right fast or not put right because of the hurry. For those reasons, I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. According to reports on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 this morning, people are losing up to £100 per week in SERPS. If that is remotely true, it is extremely worrying. It is clear that people are losing at least some benefits to which they are entitled. It would be useful at this point to hear from the Minister what action the Government intend to take to put right the problems with the computer. How long is that expected to take? What compensation will be paid to those who have suffered as a result of the problems?
Without suggesting that the amendment is an appropriate way of dealing with the problem because as an amendment I would not support it, it seems to me to be a useful way of raising the issue for discussion. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a statement which will, as far as possible, satisfy our concerns.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, surely one of the rationales for the Bill which the noble Baroness gave at Second Reading was that at last the two computers—namely, the Inland Revenue computer and the Department of Social Security computer—can talk to each other. If one of them is down, that blows the whole idea out of the water. Therefore, I support my noble friend's amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seeks through his amendments to defer the transfer of the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue until the new NIRS system is fully operational. As the noble Lord said, we also discussed the issue during our debates last week on the social security uprating and rerating orders. Therefore, as both the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have invited me to do so, I take the opportunity to give the House an update on current performance.
For those who are unfamiliar with the department's computer systems, a few words of background may be appropriate. The Contributions Agency has recently introduced a new National Insurance Recording System, known as NIRS2. The old NIRS1 system had to be replaced because it was ageing. I understand parts of

805
that system were originally built in the 1960s and could not support future operational and legislative changes, in particular those arising from the previous government's Pensions Act 1995. So NIRS2 is a system ordered and specified by the previous administration, and it is necessary because of actions by the previous administration. Perhaps I may add that NIRS1, like NIRS2, was provided by Andersen Consulting. There is no implication that that was not an appropriate method of proceeding. If we had been in the position of the previous government, we too would have had to extend the computer system.
The new system is designed to handle payment of NICs, hold over 65 million individual contributions records, calculate contributory benefits, provide data and pay age-related rebates to pension schemes and providers. It goes without saying that this is one of the biggest systems in Europe, with over 14 million lines of computer software.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has informed the other place of progress with the system on a number of occasions. Those reports have not sought to underplay the difficulties that there have been with the system; nor have I tried to do so in responding to noble Lords' questions. Our task has been to stabilise the system to enable its full operation to be available at the earliest point. We are now starting to see more of the system working. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that, while not everything is working smoothly, we are now planning the recovery. If noble Lords are content, I shall spend a few moments explaining the current position.
First, I want to put the problems in perspective. The problems have caused difficulties for the individuals involved, and I certainly do not want to minimise them. We very much regret that; but we should not overemphasise the scale of the problems. They have only affected contributory benefits—that is to say, the difficulties have not affected payments of benefits such as child benefit, disability living allowance and income support. I said "only", but noble Lords will appreciate what I mean. Similarly, they have not affected contributory benefits in payment before the system went live; indeed, they have only affected new claims. So, for example, over 10 million existing pensioners have been entirely unaffected by the changes. The obvious reason is that the new system was not in place fully to record the 1997–98 payments into NICs. It means that we are trying to make calculations for retirement pensions and widows' pensions which are based on, say, 40 years or 45 years of payments without having the benefit of up-to-date information regarding the last year.
That is the scale of the problem. There is a one-year shortfall of NICs information going into the system. However, we clearly have the information for the rest of those years. That is the degree of error. That is why—and I shall return to this later—for the most part, but with one exception that I shall come to, the degree of error is about £1 to £2 a week for contributory benefits. That is the effect of not having such information. If, as a result, anyone comes below income support, then his or her income support will be manually adjusted to float him or her up to a proper level of income.
806
If it is suggested that there have been subsequent overpayments, that can be adjusted slowly through the course of the year. In other words, the scale of the problem is the fact that we do not have accurate contributory information for what would be the last year before a claimant began to receive or sought to receive retirement or widows' benefits. Therefore, for the most part, that degree of lack of information, or the potential for error, is quite narrow. Without trying to talk down the problem, it is not that a computer has collapsed and people are not receiving their payments; indeed, that is not the issue. What has happened is that the new system has come on much more slowly than we expected and we have, therefore, not had full information at the point at which people's new claims have begun to be paid. So, in a number of cases, people may be receiving slightly less than they otherwise should and that is of the order of magnitude of £1 to £2 a week.
Perhaps I may put forward some statistics in respect of the above information. I shall start with the state retirement pension. Those affected were largely those who reached pension age after 5th April 1998—around 50,000 a month. In 97 per cent. of cases a pension calculation has been made based on the contributions record up to and including the 1996/97 tax year, and that rate is being paid. As I said, the problem is having secure information for that final year. That is when the computer was not really able to take on the information. All of those awards will be reviewed, without the need for the customer to ask, once NIRS2 is fully operational and 1997–98 contributions have been posted—that is say, put into—individuals' computer holdings.
Widows' benefits were similarly affected, although over 280,000 widows who formed the existing caseload in April have been unaffected. About 4,000 new claims a month were affected. In 90 per cent. of cases an initial award or emergency payment has been made using other information available. In cases where a full or interim payment has not been made and hardship exists, calculations can be done manually to provide the basis for correct payment. This has so far been done for 3,500 people.
I turn now to the current position. From 6th January of this year NIRS2 has been providing the necessary calculations for retirement pensions and widows benefits. So all new awards from that point should be made by the system in the normal way; in other words, the backlog problem runs from either March or June of last year through to January of this year. We are now discussing the best way of reviewing the cases of those who have been given interim awards of retirement pension over the past few months so that they can receive the correct rate of benefit, which, as I said, may have been, on average, an underpayment to them of £1 to £2 per week. If the retirement pension cannot be paid because the information is more volatile than that, or if it is paid at a reduced rate, the claimant is advised of the availability of income support.
The noble Lord asked last week, and again today, whether pensioners who have not yet received their pension and do not receive it until after April 1999 will get both the increase in pension for people who defer claiming and the uprated amount from April 1999. The

807
answer is that where a claim is made but there is a delay in payment increments are not paid. However, when the award is finalised arrears are paid at the rates due for the relevant period. So someone who claimed benefit before April 1999 but does not receive it until after that date will get the uprated amount from April and be paid arrears at the applicable rate for the period before then. Therefore there will be no loss.
From 1st February we expect to be able to send claim packs to people approaching state pension age. Up to now we have been using data on the old NIRS2 system. That deals with retirement pensions, and widows' pensions where the problem relates to the last year of what may be a whole life's contributory record.
I now move on to contribution-based JSA and incapacity benefit. The problem here is much simpler because, for the most part, to be eligible one only has to have made two years' contributions and, therefore, the full array of records is not required. Moreover, there is usually an alternative source of information—namely the employer, because obviously at that point people are still in work.
I shall deal first with jobseeker's allowance. From 9th November we have had the electronic link between NIRS2 and the jobseeker's allowance computer system up and running. That has meant we have been able to pay all new and repeat claims to JSA. Before that, between 20th June and 9th November, about 1,063,000 JSA claims were disrupted by the problems with NIRS2. Ninety-five per cent. of those were paid using the contributions record from the Departmental Central Index, which is our back-up system, using information supplied by the customer, by emergency procedures such as the faxing of information, or by the award of an interim payment.
I turn now to the fourth and last of the contributory benefits; namely, incapacity benefit. Since 18th November NIRS2 has been providing information to Benefits Agency offices to enable them to make payments of incapacity benefit. Before this, as with JSA, 95 per cent. of claims were paid using contributions information from the Departmental Central Index, information supplied by the customer or by the Benefits Agency using faxed information available to the Contributions Agency from NIRS.
Those claiming retirement pensions, widows' benefits, incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance have been issued with an entitlement notice explaining the situation with initial payments and a letter where emergency payments are offered. Perhaps I may emphasise here that, if anyone seeks information about his or her situation, it is not handled by the NIRS2 computer, so we do not get into that "black hole" to which reference has been made. The information will come back to people in the usual way. I have checked on the situation and it is the case that we have made contact with CABs, Age Concern, Scottish CABs, local authorities and the pensions industry to ensure that the fullest possible information is sent out to people. As I said, any information that people seek will be handled in the usual way and does not depend on the functioning of NIRS2. So there should not be a problem with any correspondence in that situation. However, if there is,
808
obviously I would be glad privately to receive information from the noble Lord to that effect and would of course look into the matter.
The noble Lord also asked what compensation is being made for delays. If one area of the computer is for contributory benefits, the other is to make payments of age-related rebates to pension providers. As at 1st January, £1.4 billion has been paid, which is approximately 60 per cent. of the payments made by this time last year. We expect most of the balance to be paid by March, although some payments in April and May are possible. Again, to keep the matter in proportion, age-related rebates represent between a 3 per cent. and a 9 per cent. age-related rebate in addition to the normal NICs. The normal NICs information would go through to NIRS—the normal rebate. The degree of discrepancy is between 2.5 per cent. and 9 per cent. and is age-related. Of course, that will be paid subsequently when we have the full information to which I referred.
The average loss, if I may put it this way, is about £2.50 a week. Again, I do not seek to minimise the situation. We are talking about a limited number of people; indeed, we are only talking in figures of up to £100 where people are considering whether they should be contracting back into SERPS out of a personal scheme by virtue of the age-related rebate. The potential loss there goes up to about £100 a week and affects only a tiny number of people. For the most part, it is simply that between 91 per cent. and 97 per cent. of the NICs rebates are being rebated to the employer. The area of the problem is that last little bit between the 2.5 per cent. and the 9 per cent., which is age-related. We expect all that to be fully in place by April or May.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Baroness has spoken about retirement pensions and an average drop of £1 or £2 a week. Does that include SERPS or is SERPS a different case?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is a different case. With retirement pensions, we are talking about newcomers into the system for the state basic old age pension. That is where the £1 to £2 figure I gave comes in. A SERPS problem would be in addition to that.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Minister tell us the figures for SERPS losses and how they will be made up?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the average loss for a normal SERPS payment would be about £2.50 a week as opposed to the £1 or £2 per week for the basic old age pension. It can leap up to £100 in exceptional cases where there is a question of whether a person should be opting back into SERPS from a personal pension, or other movement. We are talking about a loss of about £1 or £2 from the retirement pension and an average of about £2.50 or thereabouts from the SERPS element. All of this will subsequently come back into payment and be made good. If, as a

809
result, this brought someone on retirement pension to below income support figures—it would not of course apply to someone on SERPS—we would do our best to get information to ensure that they are floated up to the income support level and make any subsequent adjustment. Some 30,000 people have been assisted in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed me on what compensation is being made available in respect of delays. Starting with age-related rebates, compensation is being paid at the rate of 0.5 per cent. of each individual payment for each month of delay. That is based on advice from the Government Actuary on a reasonable rate of compensation given current market trends. It is being paid cumulatively, and will continue to be paid until the backlog of payment is cleared—in other words, in the first month it is 0.5 per cent., in the following month it is 1 per cent., in the next month it is 1.5 per cent., and so on.
The noble Lord pressed me on how this correlates with the amount of repayment for income tax. The Inland Revenue rate for overdue tax is 8.5 per cent.—that is what it charges the customer—which is calculated as the equivalent of a borrowing rate. Obviously the taxpayer who fails to pay effectively has that money on deposit for himself or avoids having to pay back a debt. For overpaid tax—that is money owed to the individual by the Inland Revenue—the current rate of interest is 4 per cent. That is a net interest rate when compared with the rate paid by a building society. The compensation figure that we are suggesting is 6 per cent., which is more generous than that charged by the Inland Revenue. It is up 0.5 per cent. per month cumulative.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. The arithmetic is very complicated. The noble Baroness said that the compensation rate is 6 per cent. Off the top of my head, I have a little difficulty in relating that to 0.5 per cent. cumulatively. I wonder whether it is not only cumulative but compound interest. Presumably the noble Baroness is saying that the figure of 6 per cent. should be compared with the 8.5 per cent. of the Inland Revenue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, not at all.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, if we are agreed that 6 per cent. is the relevant figure for the compensation in terms of an annual rate—an APR, perhaps—then presumably it should be compared with the 8.5 per cent., which is the amount charged if late payment is made. But I am open to persuasion.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, for once I think I can say that the noble Lord is incorrect. For example, if you are a late taxpayer, you are deferring paying a debt. If you had to borrow money to pay that debt, you would be borrowing at 8.5 per cent in the markets, whether it be by way of a mortgage or other form of loan. That is why the Inland Revenue will charge 8.5 per cent. If the money is owed to you, had that money been paid on time and been in your building
810
society account or a government bond, there would be a return of 4 per cent. net. I should emphasise that these figures are tax free; the compensation is ex gratia. I trust that the noble Lord is as satisfied as he can be with that explanation.
Compensation for those claiming benefits, as opposed to the age related rebate compensation, is covered by normal departmental rules. The rules state that there must be clear and unambiguous departmental error—NIRS2 delays would constitute such error; the delay must exceed an indicator period set for each benefit; arrears must be at least £100; and the amount of compensation due must be at least £10. Compensation will be paid when full national insurance information has been provided and each benefit has been reviewed, with arrears being assessed and paid. Claims for compensation will not need to be made; cases will be considered automatically.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this subject is a little difficult to deal with across the Floor. If I understand the noble Baroness, the figures we were discussing a moment or two ago are in relation to age-related rebates and so on. Clearly the vast majority of these people are national insurance pensioners whose arrears, I hope, are not likely to amount to more than £100. On the basis of what the Minister is now saying, they will receive nothing at all.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is quite the contrary; they will certainly get their money. The question is whether they will get compensation, which is different. It depends whether they meet the criteria. They will certainly get their money, but the question is whether their losses are such that they are entitled to compensation over and above the arrears payment. They will be paid in the normal way according to normal DSS guidelines, and I have laid out those guidelines for the noble Lord. As it is a departmental matter, it is open to the Secretary of State to review those guidelines. Certainly there is no intention at the moment of which I am aware to depart from them.
The problem with letters arises in relation to the NIRS2 problem with correspondence. The machine needs to be working in order to answer problems as to why the machine is not working, if I can put it that way. As far as I am aware, it only applies to some of those NIRS age-related rebate issues, which traditionally have been generated by the computer. It does not apply to the vast field of contributory benefits. If the noble Lord is concerned about some cases, we shall be very happy to look into them.
I turn now to the way in which NIRS2 processes contributions. NIRS2 has processed more than 62 million contribution items submitted by employers for employees who have paid class 1 contributions in the 1997–98 tax year. As at 31st December, around 29 million items had been posted to account. We expect the great majority of this year's end of year returns to have been posted to individuals' accounts and be in use for benefit purposes by the end of March when the transfer takes place. The noble Lord will also recognise that there are always some contributions which, for one

811
reason or another, are received after the end of the year to which they relate. So technically the noble Lord's amendment could defer the transfer indefinitely.
The normal quarterly and monthly billing and debiting arrangements for self-employed people are also working effectively now.
As I am sure your Lordships will agree, the task now is to catch up as much as possible of the outstanding work, particularly the remaining end-of-year returns and contracted-out pension rebates, and to roll out the remaining arrears of the system—in particular some of the functions which support the pensions industry, for example, in the winding up of pension schemes. The noble Lord asked both today and on a previous occasion, when we expect the whole system will be up and running with the problems resolved. Our current plans and those of Andersen Consulting are that the whole system will be available by the end of the financial year; that is, by the end of March. So in answer to the noble Lord's amendment, NIRS will be operational in any case by the time the Contributions Agency transfers to the Inland Revenue.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for going into this in some detail. I do not wish to belittle the problems but the message is very much that the system has not collapsed. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, a computer that has "gone down". That is not appropriate. Had NIRS1 gone down, that would have been the case and would have affected current payments. But we are talking about a new system that is being carefully piloted. Its introduction is now well under way but it is being introduced at a slower pace than the previous administration contemplated in their PFI contract with Andersen, and at a slower pace than we would have hoped because of the difficulties that we have been discussing today.
Turning to the amendments before us, the noble Lord has failed to make a case as to why the transfer of CA to IR should be dependent on NIRS2 being fully operational. The judgment we have to make is whether the risk of creating additional disruption to NIRS2 is sufficient to defer the whole transfer programme. Or, to put it the other way, we would want to be sure that deferral of the transfer significantly improved our chances of getting NIRS2 fully operational much more quickly. I do not see anything to suggest that that is the case.
The first reason, as I have said on a number of occasions, is simply that the transfer does not impose any significant additional burden on the system. The changes needed are relatively minor, largely to ensure that forms are correctly labelled and written; for example, changing an address at the top of a piece of paper. The second reason is that we have decided that those responsible for managing the system and managing the negotiations with Andersen Consulting will transfer to the Inland Revenue. It will be the same people doing the same work to get the system fully functional. Therefore there will be no loss of experience or knowledge. The recovery plans will continue across
812
the Benefits and Contributions agencies and will be overseen by senior officials from both the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, as now.
The third point is that it is not as if problems with the NIRS2 system have been identified only at this late stage. They were first identified last summer and we have therefore been able to plan the stabilisation and recovery arrangements for NIRS2 alongside the plans for the transfer. These are now well established alongside each other. Therefore we have been able to plan around any issues that the transfer had created. I am confident that the NIRS2 recovery programme has taken full account of the impact of the transfer.
The final point is that plans for the March changes to the system are well in hand. These involve changes other than those relating to the transfer but which need to be made at the same time. There could be additional risk and additional cost if some of the changes go ahead in March but not those relating to the transfer. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to add even more complexity to the problems we seek to resolve in partnership with Andersen's. Our judgment therefore has to be that proceeding with the transfer makes little difference to the NIRS2 recovery programme. Whatever occurs, the same issues must be addressed or be handled in the same way.
There is no question of our facing a choice between the transfer and paying money to those who need it. The solution proposed in the noble Lord's amendments carries its own risks. Bringing the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue together in one organisation has been welcomed by business as it will enable business and individuals to sort out their tax and contributions questions through a single government department. Business is anxious for us to go ahead and get the transfer up and running so we can start delivering those benefits. The Institute of Directors refers to this in a letter from which the noble Lord quoted the other day. Contributions Agency staff are keen to get on with working in a new organisation. Deferring the transfer would not only add to the complexity but would also be demoralising both for business and for staff.
I am therefore not convinced that the difficulties that have been outlined with NIRS2 are sufficient to justify a deferral or that deferral would have any effect on those difficulties. Indeed, the additional uncertainty would probably add to them and lead to a risk of even greater disruption. In the light of all that information—I apologise to the House for taking so long to reply—I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, far from apologising—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Baroness one question before she sits down. Will the fees paid to Andersen's enable the Government to recover any of the costs which are now being incurred in compensation payments to the victims of the delay? Will they be able to get this money back from the contractors?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously some of this information is commercially sensitive, as

813
I am sure the noble Lord will understand. However, my understanding is that Andersen's has already paid some moneys to that effect. Basically, we get compensation from Andersen's if, first, there is a fault established; secondly, if there has been a loss, as opposed to a cost—which is rather different—and, thirdly, if Andersen's has failed to rectify that or has failed to use its best efforts. My understanding at the moment is that we are paying Andersen's about £39 million in total over seven years for the NIRS service. In addition we shall have costs of about £90 million over the seven-year period for training and other such matters. That brings us to a total cost of about £134 million. If Andersen's is established to be at fault, it would be liable for that. However, that is obviously a matter for commercial negotiation.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I was about to say that the noble Baroness certainly should not apologise to the House for giving what is obviously a pretty comprehensive reply. However, one feels bound to say that it has taken a long while—from Second Reading to Report stage—for the full scale of this problem to emerge. However, at least we have much of the information on the record.
It is rather surprising that there does not appear to have been any serious attempt by the department—other than to react to incoming telephone calls—to let people know what is happening. One would have thought that as there appear to be problems with the computer system, some kind of publicity campaign in the press or elsewhere might have been helpful. Indeed it might still be helpful in one respect; namely, with regard to what people should do in respect of their tax returns. As the matter we are discussing is about to be transferred to the Inland Revenue, perhaps it might be appropriate for that department to tackle this matter. Self-assessment forms could inform people what they are supposed to do in this regard. I believe that that was the only point which the noble Baroness did not cover.
I was a little puzzled when the noble Baroness said that people are being paid but not the right amount. I am not clear why it was not possible to tell them that. As regards compensation, we seem to be in an extraordinary position. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out that a particular group of people will get compensation. However, those at the lower end of the income scale who are not in a company scheme but receive the ordinary national insurance pension—although not as much as they are entitled to—appear to be caught by the normal rules which stipulate that one is not compensated if the amount involved is less than £100. Therefore there is the paradoxical situation where the better-off are compensated, but the less well off are not. That does not appear to be a sensible arrangement.
The rules may be appropriate in individual cases where the department makes a mistake but one would have thought that the Secretary of State in consultation with the Treasury, should consider whether the normal rules ought to apply, or whether some adjustment ought to be made. The reality is that the pensioners at the bottom end of the income scale have not been getting
814
the money to which they are entitled. If I have understood the noble Baroness correctly, they will not be compensated in any way whatever.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, anyone who has been underpaid will have their payments fully made. The question is whether they get compensation in addition to the full payment of their arrears.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, they will get the amount to which they were entitled, but they will get it late and they will be out of pocket in the meantime. The Treasury has gained and the pensioners have lost. It is as simple as that. There is a problem here. At the risk of complicating the issue, I believe the noble Baroness said that the increments are also not being paid.
We have several different animals here. We have the increase from the uprating and we also have what I understood to be an increment; namely, the extra amount people get if they defer their pension by a certain time. Perhaps we should look at this matter in more detail to see whether we can clarify it. It now looks as if people will not get the increased amount which they should have got if they had deferred drawing their pension for as long as the actual delay in payment. I shall try to spell that out a little more clearly. If someone had asked for his pension to be paid last July, for example, but was not paid it, will it be increased as if he had volunteered to defer the payment of his pension? Leaving compensation and uprating on one side, I am not clear as to whether, because that person has been out of pocket meanwhile—this may be an alternative to compensation as regards people drawing deferred pensions—his permanent pension will be increased as if he had volunteered to delay the payment for a year, for example.
These are complicated matters. There is a strong reason for the Government making much clearer than they have to the public what is the situation. We had a problem, which the noble Baroness rightly did not seek to minimise, on a significant scale but there has been no serious attempt to tell people what actually happened. Nonetheless, in the light of the noble Baroness's reply—to which we may or may not wish to return on Third Reading—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

RECOVERY OF CONTRIBUTIONS WHERE INCOME TAX RECOVERY PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE
(" . The provisions of Schedule (Recovery of contributions where income tax provisions not applicable) shall have effect with respect to the recovery of—

(a) those Class 1, Class 1A, Class 1B and Class 2 contributions to which regulations under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (power to combine collection of contributions with income tax) do not apply,

(b) Class 4 contributions payable by virtue of regulations under section 18 of that Act, and

(c) interest or penalties payable under regulations made under paragraph 7A or 7B of Schedule 1 to that Act.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 38 and 43. These amendments concern the procedures available to enforce the collection of contributions that have not been paid at the right time. Let me make it clear that we are dealing here with NICs that are not the subject of any unresolved dispute between the contributor and the department over whether NICs are properly due. We are concerned here simply with unpaid debts.
The amendments give the Inland Revenue, from next April, access to exactly the same methods of enforcing the recovery of unpaid NICs as it currently has for tax. The amendments permit summary proceedings for the recovery of smaller NIC debts in magistrates' courts. They also give authorised officials who are not lawyers the right to take county court proceedings.
I shall set out the current position. Tax enforcement provisions currently apply for the recovery of unpaid contributions that are already collected by the Revenue—that is, 94 per cent. of total NICs. But the procedures available to the Contributions Agency to gather in the other 6 per cent. are currently not as comprehensive as they are for tax. We are talking principally here of flat-rate Class 2 NICs paid by the self-employed and that part of Class 1A NICs paid directly to the Contributions Agency.
Apart from the use of proceedings in the High Court for very large NIC debts, the only method the Contributions Agency has to enforce the recovery of unpaid NICs is having DSS lawyers take county court proceedings, or sheriff court proceedings in Scotland. In the Social Security Act 1988 those powers were supplemented to allow officials to recover contributions by distraining on the goods of debtors and by the equivalent process under Scottish law, thereby bringing recovery procedures for NICs a step closer to those which have long been available for tax.
We propose now to complete the alignment process begun last year in time for the transfer by extending NICs recovery powers in two ways. The first is to allow summary proceedings for the recovery of NIC debts under £2,000 to be taken in magistrates' courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again, that mirrors existing tax law. The Revenue's experience is that summary proceedings are an effective way of collecting small debts. They are likely to be the most effective way of collecting unpaid Class 2 NICs from the self-employed. Your Lordships will recall that the recently published report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the National Insurance Fund expresses concern about the high level of Class 2 arrears. This proposal directly addresses that concern, as well as being fully justified in its own right. No Scottish equivalent of the proposal is needed, as last year's Social Security Act has already made provision for equivalent recovery action to be taken there.
The other proposal is to give officials who are not lawyers the right to conduct proceedings in the county court, and in the sheriff's court in Scotland, to recover NICs. Collectors of Taxes already have that power for tax and indeed for the NICs that are recovered through the tax system.
That change will avoid the need for Revenue lawyers to scurry around the country at public expense to conduct proceedings that are normally of a quite routine character. That would be a waste of scarce and expensive resources and will be a greater waste when recovery proceedings, which currently have to be taken in the High Court, are devolved to county courts.
Those new provisions appear in the new clause and new schedule. The other amendments extend the new provisions to Northern Ireland and make a consequential amendment in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness was rather surprised at the number of amendments that I put down for Committee stage. I am rather surprised at the number of amendments that the Government are tabling on Report. I understand of course that the situation in Northern Ireland may have changed in a relevant way and I am certainly not going to call for recommittal at this point. I merely say that the House has ahead of it in this Session a massive amount of social security legislation. One certainly hopes that government amendments will appear at least at Committee stage. It is not very satisfactory for amendments to be tabled on Report, when one can only intervene once, as against bandying matters back and forth. Given the extraordinarily heavy and complex legislative programme. we should get amendments as soon as possible.
I have one simple question for the noble Baroness. Under these new clauses, does the Inland Revenue obtain greater powers than the Department of Social Security and the IR have at present?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord should accept the difference between Bills introduced in this House and legislation that is introduced in the other place and then comes to us. The noble Lord knows that this is a highly technical Bill, which is why he put down a whole lot of amendments before the Committee stage. I am grateful that the noble Lord accepts the Northern Ireland difficulties.
When a Bill starts in this House, one expects far more government amendments as a result of the complexities of cross-drafting and so on than would be the case with the two other major pieces of social security legislation. I hope that Members of the other place will give that legislation the careful scrutiny and revision that is the customary practice of your Lordships.
In answer to the noble Lord's final question, no, they will have the same powers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Powers relating to enforcement]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 46, at end insert ("until 31st August 2001").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the point that the noble Baroness has just made, I am not sure that last year's Social Security Bill, which went through the other place first and to which we passed hundreds and hundreds of amendments, gives much cause for

817
optimism. No doubt it will be easier, for the reasons she mentioned, to avoid amendments at Report stage to future legislation.
We have spent considerable time in Committee on the enforcement provisions and in particular on the relationship between the enforcement provisions available to the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security. The purpose of the amendment is to see how those changes work out. It has been suggested by the Institute of Directors that it would be appropriate that the matter be reviewed and that the powers ought not to be changed in the way proposed within a given timescale unless that review has reported. It might be worth having the noble Baroness's reaction.
We have debated that matter to some extent but the Institute of Directors raises some specific points. It seems that Inland Revenue inspectors will be able to enter business premises at any time without warning and question employees. I raised that issue on Second Reading. There is also the question of whether or not the employee can be seen alone. We have debated also whether the employee can insist on a professional adviser being present. Perhaps the noble Baroness will let us know what the position is.
The extent to which the Inland Revenue uses any additional powers is something that we shall have to see in practice. There is concern that with the combination of two sets of powers, because it is a cumulative process the dividing line between the powers of the IR as the tax-collecting authority and its powers as regards national insurance may become blurred.
The Institute of Directors makes a point that had not occurred to me but it may be one that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will wish to raise. Will the fact that failure to supply information is being decriminalised alter the situation with regard to the right to refuse to incriminate oneself? It is somewhat of a backhanded argument as to whether the civil penalties may be imposed and people will be obliged to admit that they had erred. I hope that the Minister will consider that. In particular, does she feel it would be appropriate for these matters to be reviewed?
All of us have a history in relation to these matters. I well recall my attempt to steer through the original value added tax legislation. It was bad enough saying why all the various items should be taxed, but once the enforcement provisions, which the Inland Revenue had had for the past 700 years, were put into legislation, everyone was up in arms. I had the most terrible trouble with lots of lawyers. Often, it is only when matters are changed or codified that people become aware of the real powers of the revenue departments. Therefore, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would respond to this point, which is causing some concern in the business community, even though, as she points out, business is basically in favour of the transfer.
4 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as a former managing director of a small business, I have had experience of visits by staff in what is now the social security Contributions Agency to the person who does
818
the wages. I have also had experience of the Inland Revenue visiting for the same purpose; and also of not one, but two, inspections by the VAT man. So over a period of time I have become used to inspections by statutory bodies. I see no harm in that.
However, for the three departments that I just mentioned, we may now read two. We shall be told that the Inland Revenue wants to come and talk to the person who does the wages for the business. However, we shall not necessarily be told under what hat that person is coming—whether he or she wishes to examine the social security contributions part of the operation or the PAYE part. It is extremely important that when the initial contact is made regarding an inspection that is made absolutely clear. Otherwise, there could well be some confusion, and that is not right.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am in some difficulty and shall take your Lordships' guidance. Many of the detailed points raised were addressed to Amendment No. 39. As I am sure your Lordships will have noted, that amendment was tabled in response to most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House if I respond to Amendment No. 3 and speak also to government Amendment No. 39 so that effectively we group together the two issues. Perhaps that would be sensible. As many of the detailed points relate to Amendment No. 39 perhaps I may first address Amendment No. 3 and then turn to those detailed points.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, if the Minister will excuse me, I do not wish to speak to Amendment No. 3; however, I do wish to raise a few questions in relation to Amendment No. 39.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in that case, we shall have to proceed with the amendments separately. I must therefore ask your Lordships to wait for answers until we come to Amendment No. 39; otherwise, we shall be repeating ourselves.
I note that the noble Lord opposite looks surprised. Amendment No. 39 was designed to address the very issues that were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Skelmersdale, at our previous meeting and which they have raised again today. I am therefore rather baffled that the noble Lord has spoken to some 20 amendments before we come to them.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I accept whatever is convenient for the House. If that is so, I am not quite clear why the Government did not ask for the amendment to be grouped. Perhaps the noble Baroness would deal with points that arise on this amendment but do not arise on Amendment No. 39, and then we may consider the remaining issues when we come to Amendment No. 39.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is a general amendment. It would time limit powers that successive governments have found acceptable for 50 years. Indeed, the party opposite

819
were instrumental in adding to powers of inspection as recently as the 1997 Fraud Act. So we can see no case for such a dilution of powers merely on account of the Contributions Agency transfer.
This Bill is not he occasion for substantial change of powers since the aim of the Bill is to transfer the CA as a "going concern". We have been clear from the outset that professional advisers would be nervous that there might be a levelling up of powers. This we have very deliberately not done.
Nevertheless, we accept that the statutory powers of enforcement under NICs legislation that the Inland Revenue will inherit will not be fully consistent with the existing powers in relation to tax. It is in no one's interests to have any lack of clarity or certainty about the state's powers to ask questions or ask to enter premises.
We anticipate that, after this legislation takes effect, the Inland Revenue will be consulting with a range of opinion about desirable harmonisations of tax and NICs. Indeed, those discussions have already started. Some areas for discussion would be on the details of the charging rules. Others would be on the administration powers and administrative processes to the extent that they impinge on employers and others.
So we see considerable merit in conducting a review of inspectors' powers, taking into account the rights of individual contributors as well as the interests of employers and the need to block fraud.
Such a review needs to be done properly, running well beyond the timescale of this Bill. Moreover, the review needs to look at the wider context. The Inland Revenue is being given other tasks such as policing the national minimum wage and student loan recovery, and handling the working families tax credit. All three involve employers, although we hope to burden them as little as possible.
It may be that, on close examination, different powers are indeed needed for different purposes. But our starting-point must be that a Revenue officer visiting an employer should have much the same powers, and limitations on those powers, whatever the purpose of the visit—in other words, as much congruence as possible.
I am conscious that the Committee on the Enforcement Powers of the Revenue Departments, set up in 1980 under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, took some four years to produce its reports. And enactment of its recommendations, in detailed consultation with representative bodies, took another five years.
That committee was exemplary in its thoroughness and very wide-ranging in its scope. While we want this review to be thorough, we do not intend to be so wide-ranging. That is, not least, because we want to see the outcome—which I do not pre-judge—on a much faster time-scale.
Nevertheless, that precedent leaves me cautious about accepting a particular timetable for replacement legislation to be in place. Hence I should not see it as responsible to time limit the current, indeed ancient, inspectors' powers. Unlike the matters covered by the
820
Keith Committee, we shall not be able to make all the changes that may prove desirable in the annual Finance Bill. Instead, we may need to amend social security legislation or, perhaps, DTI legislation where the national minimum wage is concerned.
I hope that what I have said reassures the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that we seek clear, workable and effective powers for inspectors, which balance privacy against protecting contributors' rights and blocking fraud. Our detailed proposals are set out in Amendment No. 39. Given the review I have announced, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. We share what we understand to be the noble Lord's concern. It is merely that we believe that a proper review, especially in the light of the Bath study, is a more appropriate and robust basis for achieving the same end as the one he proposes in his amendment, which would effectively mean a guillotine and would therefore cut across a decent and proper review of several sets of concurrent but not at present fully consistent powers. I hope that in the light of that explanation—namely, that we accept the noble Lord's concern but believe a better way of dealing with the matter is by a properly informed consultative review, as we are currently exploring—he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the intention of the amendment was to introduce the idea that there might be a review. Therefore I can happily withdraw the amendment, although there may be some outstanding points on Amendment No. 39 to which we shall come in due course—although that amendment, as I understand it, is designed to deal with points I raised in Committee. I shall read the noble Baroness's reply carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Decisions by officers of Board]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 40, after ("made") insert ("for the purposes of this paragraph").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 10. These are all technical amendments.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 deal with two technical points arising in Clause 7(1). The first ensures that the regulations referred to at the beginning of paragraph (f) mean only those made for the purposes of that paragraph rather than regulations governing entitlement generally to SSP or SMP. The second deals with the missing consequential amendment in paragraph (h) which was mentioned at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for pointing it out, however embarrassing it may be to the parliamentary draftsman. It is a case of "Bingo!" for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, He was absolutely right.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 make clear provision for the kinds of decisions that can be varied or superseded in accordance with regulations under Clause 9.
The effect of Amendment No. 6 is to make it clear that decisions that supersede earlier decisions can be varied. Amendment No. 7 ensures that a decision which

821
has been confirmed or varied by the tax appeal commissioners can subsequently be superseded—but only where circumstances have changed since the decision in a way which justifies a different decision. Nothing in the amendments creates a general right for officials to overturn decisions of an independent tribunal.
There are a number of possible circumstances where decisions may need to be varied. Examples are where the original decision was incorrect for some reason, such as being based on incomplete or incorrect facts. Where circumstances change so that the continuing effect of an original decision is no longer appropriate, then a fresh decision can be made to supersede the original decision. For example, the employment status of an individual may be one such matter in which there may be a move between employment and self-employment.
The purpose of Amendment No. 8 is to ensure that a variation by an officer of an earlier decision, and a decision which supersedes an earlier decision, both carry a right of appeal to the tax appeal commissioners.
As it stands, Clause 10 expressly confers a right of appeal against decisions made under Clause 7 of the Bill. But without this amendment there would be no explicit right of appeal against the variation or superseding of a decision. Amendment No. 8 makes clear provision for appeals in both of those instances.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are further technical amendments to ensure that regulations made by the board can cater for matters that arise pending or out of decisions.
As it stands, Clause 13 (1)(a) enables provisions to be made in regulations for matters arising pending a decision by an officer of the board, but we believe that we need to provide also for matters which arise pending the determination by the tax appeal commissioners of an appeal from such a decision.
The regulations may need to provide in particular for the arrangements to be made for the payment of contributions due under a decision of an officer while that decision is under appeal. Amendment No. 10 enables such provision to be made. These are all technical amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I agree that these are all technical amendments. I can only say that, knowing the great skill of the parliamentary draftsmen, it is a rare occasion when one is able to score a goal against them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the House and we on the Government Benches in particular are grateful to the noble Lord for his perspicacity on his feet. I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Social Security Administration Act 1992").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Decisions varying or superseding earlier decisions]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 5, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("(including a decision superseding an earlier decision)").
Page 5, line 21, at end insert (", and
( ) for any such decision as confirmed or varied by the tax appeal Commissioners on appeal to be superseded, in the event of a material change of circumstances since the decision was made, by a subsequent decision made by an officer of the Board.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Appeals against decisions of Board]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
("(A1) This section applies to any decision of an officer of the Board under section 7 of this Act or under regulations made by virtue of section 9(1)(b) of this Act (whether as originally made or as varied under regulations made by virtue of section 9(1)(a) of this Act).
(1) In the case of a decision to which this section applies—").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Matters arising as respects decisions]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 7, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) pending the determination by the tax appeal Commissioners of an appeal against any such decision,").
Page 7, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section may, in particular—

(a) make provision making a person liable to pay contributions pending the determination by the tax appeal Commissioners of an appeal against a decision of an officer of the Board, and

(b) make provision as to the repayment in prescribed circumstances of contributions paid by virtue of the regulations.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 19 [Payments in respect of money purchase contracted-out pension schemes to be made out of National Insurance Fund]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 11:
Leave out Clause 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes to leave out Clause 19. I raised the amendment because I am not clear as to the principle of the clause. The clause affects payments in respect of money purchase contracted-out pension schemes to be made out of the National Insurance Fund. Again, I should declare an interest, although the fund of which I am chairman is a final salary scheme and not a money purchase one.
There has been a long history, following the original Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which the changes in advance corporation tax deprived many pension funds of about £5 billion. Subsequently, a series of changes were recommended by the Government Actuary with regard to how the rebates should be

823
adjusted between money purchase and final salary schemes and personal pensions. However, alas, the recommendations of the Government Actuary were not accepted. The overall effect was to push people back into SERPS and, I imagine, in turn to generate more public expenditure of about £500,000.
This is all in the context of the explanatory note which appears at the right hand margin, but I am still not clear as to the purpose of the clause. The problems I have just mentioned have been serious. Much of the clause refers to Northern Ireland and we understand why those changes may be necessary. Even if the situation in Northern Ireland continues as the Government and everyone hope, there are other amendments which reflect the possible change in the situation there.
Leaving Northern Ireland to one side, if the helpful Explanatory Notes are to be believed, what is happening is that the national insurance rebates will be funded from the National Insurance Fund. There are arrangements for paying in and paying out from the Consolidated Fund to the National Insurance Fund, but I am not clear as to the purpose of the merry-go-round. Earlier, we discussed the role of the National Insurance Fund and there were discussions between the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and myself as to whether it is a pipe or a tank, with flows inwards or outwards.
However, the function of the fund becomes increasingly uncertain with respect to why particular amounts of money—on a substantial scale presumably—should be paid in one direction or another. I wish to ask the Minister whether it has anything to do with the other problems I mentioned which still have severe repercussions. Alternatively, is there some object to the clause which I have been unable to discern? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord asked what was the purpose of the clause. Since we are not now in the Committee stage, I can give an answer and if he has more detailed questions I may have to respond to him in correspondence.
Clause 19 corrects a defect in the legislation which governs the financing of national insurance rebates for COMPS (contracted-out occupational money purchase pension schemes). It represents a technical amendment in relation to government accounting mechanisms and does not affect individuals in or employers running occupational pension schemes.
The Pension Schemes Act 1993 should provide for COMP rebates to be funded from the National Insurance Fund and for any rebate-associated recoveries to be paid into that fund.
However, through inadvertence—possibly because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was not a Member of your Lordships' House at the time—no such provisions have been made. Instead, the legislation only provides for the age-related element of COMP rebates to be paid out of money provided by Parliament. Therefore, rebates have been paid from the Consolidated Fund.
824
The clause corrects Section 177 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, the section which governs the general financing arrangements for that Act, to allow COMP rebates to be funded from the National Insurance Fund and for recoveries to be made direct to the fund. It also provides for the fund to reimburse the Consolidated Fund the moneys paid out during the current tax year in respect of such rebates. For completeness, the Northern Ireland legislation is also amended correspondingly.
I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question as to the purpose of Clause 19. It is to correct the Pension Schemes Act 1993. Because this is Report stage and we therefore do not engage in debate, I should be happy to follow up in writing any queries the noble Lord may have.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps in her ultimate response, which must surely be by letter at this stage, she could answer a question from me. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 19 make it clear that repayment from the National Insurance Fund into the Consolidated Fund for the purposes mentioned by the Minister will be a short-term operation. The provision states:
"during the period beginning with 1st April 1998 and ending with the passing of this Act".
There is no need for the Minister to respond now; I would not dream of putting her under even more pressure.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am not sure that I am clearer than I was at the outset. Leaving to one side the broad political issues, if I understand the matter correctly, the noble Baroness does not suggest that the provision corrects something which results from the failure of the Government to agree to what was recommended by the Government Actuary. It all dates back to 1993. I am not clear what has been happening in the meantime and why the terms of the clause as it stands are so restricted in time. What has been going on between 1993 and now? If it has been all right since 1993, presumably people have not been paying out the sums without proper parliamentary authorisation. Why is it now necessary to make the change? The whole thing is a merry-go-round anyway and at the end of the day it makes no difference whether the money is paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the National Insurance Fund.
The money all comes from you and me and everyone else in the country, either by way of contributions or by way of tax. Obviously there is some case to be made for it being paid out of one fund or another and the noble Baroness would know about that. I should like to continue with the idea that there is a contributory principle, and so on, and to that extent it is best that it comes out of the National Insurance Fund. However, I really do not understand now, for one moment, what the situation is. No doubt the noble Baroness could perhaps write to us and, if necessary, we can put it on the record at Third Reading. Subject to that, I would not

825
wish to press the amendment, even though I am not the least bit clear as to what the consequences will be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Special provision for certain contracts]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 25, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) This section applies to—

(a) any contract for the supply of goods or services to the Secretary of State which relates partly to functions transferred by virtue of this Act to the Board (in this section referred to as "transferred functions") and partly to functions retained by the Secretary of State (in this section referred to as "retained functions"), and

(b) any contract for the supply of goods or services to the Secretary of State which relates only to transferred functions or only to retained functions, but whose terms are wholly or partly determined in accordance with a contract falling within paragraph (a) above.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. This is another group of technical amendments which I hope will not detain us long. I explained in Committee some of the complex contractual relationships with which we are dealing as part of the transfer of the CA to the IR. The amendments in this group deal with subsidiary contracts made under a framework agreement. Perhaps the best way of illustrating this is by an example. The department has a framework agreement with a supplier to provide desk-top computers at a set price. The department then places orders for individual computers under that agreement. This amendment simply allows those subsidiary contracts to be transferred or not, as the case may be, so that the same department, either the DSS or the Inland Revenue, holds the contracts for the whole lot. This is a straightforward and technical provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("functions transferred to them by virtue of this Act") and insert ("transferred functions").
Page 10, line 46, leave out ("functions transferred to them by virtue of this Act") and insert ("transferred functions").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move these two amendments formally.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22 [Power to transfer functions by Order in Council]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 25, at end insert—
("(bb) any function under section 7 of the Social Security Act 1986 (occupational pension schemes becoming contracted-out between 1986 and 1993), so far as that section remains in force by virtue of paragraph 22 of Schedule 6 to the Pension Schemes Act 1993,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. As I said in Committee, Clause 22 is intended to allow us the flexibility in the light of operational experience to make adjustments by Order
826
in Council at the edges of the boundary drawn between the DSS and the Inland Revenue. If your Lordships remember, this was particularly pressed on us by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who was worried as to whether it was right to replace the appeal decision with a unified appeal tribunal rather than with the Special General Commissioners of Tax.
These amendments add one small area to the scope of the clause so that it covers all the areas of contracted-out pension business. In addition to its functions under Part III of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, the contracted-out employment group of the Contributions Agency also carries out some functions under Section 7 of the Social Security Act 1986, which covers incentive payments made by the Secretary of State to pension schemes becoming contracted out between 1st January 1986 and 5th April 1993.
As drafted, Clause 22 does not cover this work and so Amendment No. 15 includes these functions in the clause and Amendment No. 17 add references to equivalent Northern Ireland legislation. Amendment No. 16 makes good the omission of Northern Ireland provisions which correspond with provisions referred to in subsection (2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 12, line 27, after ("Fund.") insert—
("( ) references to section 1(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 161(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 have effect as references to section 1(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 and section 141(1) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16 formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 12, line 27, after ("Fund,") insert—
("( ) references to section 7 of the Social Security Act 1986 and paragraph 22 of Schedule 6 to the Pension Schemes Act 1993 have effect as references to Article 9 of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and paragraph 21 of Schedule 5 to the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move the amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 12, line 35, at end insert ("do any of the following")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 to 28 and also to Amendment No. 45. This group of amendments would change the mechanism by which functions in respect of Northern Ireland would transfer. While they provide greater flexibility, they would not affect the policy intention or the eventual result. They are about form rather than substance.
At Second Reading, I said that national insurance contributions operations are managed by the Contributions Unit, which is part of the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency. As in Great Britain, the bulk of NICs are collected by the Inland Revenue alongside tax. Further, centralised functions, such as maintaining the records of contributors in Northern Ireland, are done by the Contributions Agency in Great Britain on behalf of the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency. Accordingly, we intend that the Contributions Unit should transfer to the Inland Revenue at the same time as the Contributions Agency.
As currently drafted, Clause 23 provides for a two-stage transfer via the DSS. The first stage from the Northern Ireland Department to DSS would be done by Order in Council under Section 86 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The second transfer, from DSS to the Inland Revenue, would be done by Order in Council under this clause. That was consistent with the aim that the Northern Ireland Assembly should start work on 1st February.
It is now clear that, despite all the efforts that have been made, the Assembly will not start work that early. So we now think it makes more sense to provide in this Bill for a direct transfer of the operational functions from the Northern Ireland Department to the Inland Revenue. That will ensure that a seamless transfer of operational functions can happen for the whole of the United Kingdom in April.
Amendment No. 21 provides the flexibility to perform a direct transfer of policy functions to Treasury and Inland Revenue, if that looks the best way of securing the policy intention of a simultaneous policy transfer to the Chancellor's departments across the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 22 retains the option of a two-stage transfer.
So the clause as amended would facilitate a simultaneous operational and policy transfer on 1st April across the whole of the UK. Or it could be used to transfer operational functions to the Inland Revenue, and policy functions to DSS, on 1st April, with a subsequent onward transfer of GB and Northern Ireland policy functions on the same day.
Amendments Nos. 19, 21, and 28 allow for the restructuring and renaming of Northern Ireland departments that is proposed to happen before the Assembly starts work. These amendments retain our policy intention of a single operational transfer across the UK on 1st April—I understand that there is a question mark in relation to that, given the speed of the Northern Ireland developments—and a single date for the policy transfers to Treasury and Inland Revenue. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I can understand the reason for flexibility. If it can be short-circuited in the way which has just been described, why was it not done that way in the first place?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord means by "the first place".
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are changing the system, as I understand it, and doing it directly from the
828
department without going into, so to speak, a holding pattern meanwhile. I just was not quite clear why, if this can be done now to give flexibility, the Government did not make this arrangement in any case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I think the most useful thing I can say to the noble Lord is that we expected all this to have happened by 1st February and that the Northern Ireland Assembly would be up and running by 1st February, so that this would then have followed conventional practice in other departments. If I can help the noble Lord further on this as to whether there is some technical reason, I will come back to him, but that is my understanding.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 28:
Page 12, line 36, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("relevant Northern Ireland authority").
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("or 2").
Page 12, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—
("(b) make provision for transferring from the relevant Northern Ireland authority to the Secretary of State any other function in relation to Northern Ireland which relates to any of the matters specified in paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (excepted matters),
(bb) make provision for transferring from the relevant Northern Ireland authority to the Board or the Treasury any function in relation to Northern Ireland corresponding to a function transferred to the Board or, as the case may be, the Treasury by virtue of section 2 of this Act, and").
Page 12, line 46, at end insert—
("(1A) If an Order in Council made under this section by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above has transferred to the Secretary of State any function in relation to Northern Ireland which corresponds to a function transferred to the Board or the Treasury by virtue of section 2 of this Act, Her Majesty may by a further Order in Council under this section make provision for transferring that function from the Secretary of State to the Board or, as the case may be, the Treasury.").
Page 12, line 47, leave out from ("may,") to end of line 2 on page 13 and insert ("for the purposes of the Order").
Page 13, line 8, leave out from first ("provision") to ("as") in line 11.
Page 13, line 11, at end insert (", including—

(i) provision modifying references in any enactment to the Northern Ireland Assembly, to statutory rules for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 or to the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland,

(ii) provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities, and

(iii) provision for the transfer to Her Majesty's Home Civil Service of persons employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service.").

Page 13, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) A certificate issued by the Board, the Secretary of State or the Treasury that any property vested in a Northern Ireland department immediately before an Order under this section takes effect has been transferred by virtue of the Order to the Board, the Secretary of State or the Treasury, as the case may be, shall be conclusive evidence of the transfer.
(4) A certificate issued by the Board or the Treasury that any property vested in the Secretary of State immediately before an Order under this section takes effect has been transferred by virtue of the Order to the Board or the Treasury, as the case may be, shall be conclusive evidence of the transfer.").

829
Page 13, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (1A) above does not limit the powers conferred by section 22 of this Act in relation to Northern Ireland.").
Page 13, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) In this section "the relevant Northern Ireland authority", in relation to any function, means the Northern Ireland department by which the function is exercisable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments formally.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 30:
Page 14, line 30, leave out ("the passing of this Act") and insert ("such day after 30th November 1999 as the Secretary of State may, by order, appoint").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had indicated that I would move Amendment No. 30 but as we have already debated its substance, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 15, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) section 2 and Schedule 3 so far as they amend section 177 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or section 88 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 32 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. If I may deal with this slightly back to front, Amendment No. 36 is a technical amendment, which extends slightly the powers of the existing joint authority, comprising the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Departments of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, that co-ordinates the social security system across the United Kingdom. It ensures that the joint authority will continue to be able to make adjustments between the Great Britain and Northern Ireland National Insurance Funds once those funds have been transferred to the control and management of the Inland Revenue.
Amendment No. 37 makes the same changes to the powers of the new joint authority, which will include also the Chancellor, to be set up under the 1998 Northern Ireland Act when the Northern Ireland Assembly starts work. Finally, Amendment No. 32 makes a consequential adjustment in Clause 27 so that these amendments apply in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 15, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) section (Recovery of contributions where income tax recovery provisions not applicable) and Schedule (Recovery of contributions where income tax recovery provisions not applicable),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 15, line 15, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 16 and insert ("enactment which extends to Northern Ireland,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that this wins the record for being the briefest amendment-moving speech this evening. Amendment No. 34 is a technical amendment to the subsection of Clause 27 which extends to Northern Ireland the repeals schedule to the Bill. In the light of additional material now in that schedule, that provision is now too restrictive and needs to be drawn in more general terms. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Transfer of functions under subordinate legislation]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—

("S.I. 1996/1245.

The Social Security (Additional Pension) (Contributions Paid in Error) Regulations 1996.

All the regulations.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, following my exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in Committee, we have given further thought to the functions conferred on the Secretary of State in statutory instruments. As a result, this technical amendment adds to the list in the schedule a further instrument which confers functions on the Secretary of State in cases where contributions have been paid in error. I hope that the amendment will receive the full support of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was delighted to see the amendment because obviously the object behind my probing amendments to Schedule 2 in Committee persuaded the Government and their advisers to have another look at the schedule. Clearly they have done that. They had a tiny look immediately before Committee stage which was possibly prompted by me, possibly not; I do not know. They made one small alteration at that stage. Now a fairly significant alternation has been made. Another statutory instrument has been introduced into the list in Schedule 2. In welcoming the amendment, I am especially pleased that column 3 refers to, "All the regulations".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Transfer of other functions to Treasury or Board]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
Page 36, line 8, at end insert—
(".—(1) In section 177 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (co-ordination with Northern Ireland), in subsection (3)(a), for "to make" there is substituted "to require the making by the Inland Revenue of".
(2) This paragraph shall cease to have effect on the commencement of the repeal by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 of section 177 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.").

831
Page 37, line 9, at end insert—
("Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47)
. In section 88 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (the Joint Authority), in subsection (3), for the words from "power" onwards there is substituted "power—

(a) to require the making by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of any necessary adjustments between the National Insurance Fund and the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund, and

(b) to make any other necessary financial adjustments."").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 38:
After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  RECOVERY OF CONTRIBUTIONS WHERE INCOME TAX RECOVERY PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE
  Interpretation
  1. In any provision of this Schedule "authorised officer" means an officer of the Board authorised by them for the purposes of that provision.
  Magistrates' courts
  2.—(1) Any amount which—

  (a) is due by way of contributions or by way of interest or penalty in respect of contributions, and

  (b) does not exceed the prescribed sum,

  shall, without prejudice to any other remedy, be recoverable summarily as a civil debt in proceedings commenced in the name of an authorised officer.
  (2) All or any of the sums due from any one person in respect of contributions, or interest or penalties in respect of contributions, (being sums which are by law recoverable summarily) may be included in the same complaint, summons, order, warrant or other document required by law to be laid before justices or to be issued by justices, and every such document shall, as respects each such sum, be construed as a separate document and its invalidity as respects any one such sum shall not affect its validity as respects any other such sum.
  (3) Proceedings under this paragraph in England and Wales may be brought—

  (a) in the case of Class 2 contributions or interest or penalties in respect of such contributions, at any time before the end of the year following the tax year in which the contributor becomes liable to pay the contributions, and

  (b) in any other case, not later than the first anniversary of the day on which the contributions became due.

  (4) In sub-paragraph (1) above, the expression "recoverable summarily as a civil debt" in respect of proceedings in Northern Ireland means recoverable in proceedings under Article 62 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
  (5) In this paragraph—
  "the prescribed sum" means the sum for the time being specified in section 65(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (recovery of income tax, etc. in magistrates' courts);
  "tax year" means the twelve months beginning with 6th April in any year.
  County courts
  3.—(1) Without prejudice to any other remedy, any sum which is due by way of contributions or by way of interest or penalty in respect of contributions may—

  (a) in England and Wales, and

  (b) in Northern Ireland, where the amount does not exceed the limit specified in Article 10(1) of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980,

  be sued for and recovered from the person liable as a debt due to the Crown by proceedings in a county court commenced in the name of an authorised officer.
  (2) An authorised officer may conduct any proceedings under this paragraph before a county court in England and Wales, although not a barrister or solicitor.
  (3) In this paragraph as it applies in Northern Ireland, "county court" means a county court held for a division under the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.
  (4) Sections 21 and 42(2) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 shall apply as if any reference in those provisions to any enactment included a reference to this paragraph, and Part III of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (general civil jurisdiction) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph in Northern Ireland.
  Sheriff courts in Scotland
  4.—(1) In Scotland, any sum which is due by way of contributions or by way of interest or penalty in respect of contributions may, without prejudice to any other remedy, be sued for and recovered from the person liable as a debt due to the Crown by proceedings commenced in the sheriff court in the name of an authorised officer.
  (2) An authorised officer may conduct any proceedings under this paragraph, although not an advocate or solicitor.
  (3) Paragraphs 2 and 3 above shall not apply in Scotland.
  General
  5.—(1) Proceedings may be brought for the recovery of the total amount of Class 1 or Class 1A contributions which an employer has become liable to pay on a particular date and any sum due by way of interest or penalty in respect of those contributions without distinguishing the amounts which the employer is liable to pay in respect of each employee and without specifying the employees in question; and for the purposes of proceedings under any of paragraphs 2 to 4 above that total amount shall be one cause of action or one matter of complaint.
  (2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) shall prevent the bringing of separate proceedings for the recovery of each of the several amounts of Class 1 or Class 1A contributions which the employer is liable to pay.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Enforcement]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 38, leave out lines 14 to 23 and insert—
  ("(3) Premises are liable to inspection under this section if an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that—

  (a) any persons are employed there;

  (b) a trade or business is being carried on from there;

  (c) any records relating to a trade or business are kept there; or

  (d) a personal or occupational pension scheme is being administered there,

  but a private dwelling-house is not liable to inspection under this section unless an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a trade or business is being carried on from the dwelling-house and that the trade or business is not also being carried on from premises other than a dwelling-house.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on Second Reading and in Committee some concerns were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the

  833
  noble Earl, Lord Russell, concerning the meaning of two subsections of the new Section 110ZA which sets out the powers under which Inland Revenue officers will operate when carrying out inspections in relation to NICs. I undertook to consult lawyers as to whether it was possible to redraft those subsections in such a way as to clarify the policy intentions behind them. The noble Lord and the noble Earl, who have a great deal of experience, were somewhat baffled by the wording and that seemed to me to make such action highly necessary. I have done that, and the amendment is the result. I hope that it meets the concerns which were expressed.
  Subsection (2)(c) states that an authorised officer shall have the power,
  "to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks fit … every person whom he finds in any such premises or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or have been a person liable to pay … contributions".
  Your Lordships were concerned that, on the face of it, this could lead in extremis to an inspector being accompanied by a business competitor or a representative of the media. An important point here is that if an inspector acted in that way he would almost certainly be in breach of his duty to keep the affairs of contributors confidential. That would in itself be a criminal offence. In other words, there is a legal protection to check the inspector from doing what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, feared. However, that is not covered in the new section but is covered by the inspector's duty of confidentiality.
  As I explained in Committee, we see the main justification for this power as a protection for an employee who might otherwise be subjected to pressure by an unscrupulous employer attempting to cover up fraudulent actions. As I said, if the employee "may" have the employer present, then we fear he "must" in that situation of possible duress. That is a valuable protection for contributors. But as a further safeguard, I shall also ask officials to consider the guidance given to inspectors to ensure that it reflects that intention and makes clear that if the inspector feels that it is sensible to be accompanied on an inspection visit, it must only be by an appropriate person such as, for example, a Benefits Agency officer; for example, in the case of suspected collusive employment or benefit fraud. I hope that your Lordships will accept those reassurances about subsection (2)(c).
  The other wording which was queried was in subsection (3) which details the premises liable to be inspected. On this count we have decided to substitute the wording in Section 110B(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 which was inserted by Section 12 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 with the necessary addition of a line to include premises from which a personal or occupational pensions scheme is being administered. The revised wording, for which we may thank the previous Administration, so we hope it will be appropriately received today, makes clear that if business records are
  834
  kept both at home and in the office, the inspector's visit must be to the office. I hope that clarifies that point.
  I suggest that what is proposed substantially meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about an Englishman's house being his castle. If he did not say that, I am sure that is what he meant to say. I am sure that he will agree with me that it should not be possible to drop down the portcullis if the house holds the only records relating to employees' national insurance or occupational pension records. But I hope these words reflect more clearly the principle that an inspector would only go to a dwelling house if it was absolutely necessary; in other words, if it was being used to divert information.
  I emphasise again that there are no powers in Section 110ZA which give right to enter by force. Entry into any premises can only happen with the co-operation of the owner or occupier. Failure to allow access to the relevant records can lead to proceedings before the tax appeal commissioners being instituted and the imposition by them of monetary penalties. Continued failure can lead to further penalties imposed by the inspector but appealable to the commissioners.
  I believe this strikes a fair balance between the need for the Revenue to carry out inspections which ensure that the NICs scheme is being operated as required by statute and the right to privacy. The amendment is in direct response to concerns raised in Committee so I hope that your Lordships will find it helpful. I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, certainly in the light of the comments which the noble Baroness made when we were debating Amendment No. 3, I am grateful for what she has said on this amendment and for the fact that it appears on the Marshalled List. It provides some reassurance, subject to anything which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may wish to say in relation to it. If I did not actually say that it was an "Englishman's home is his castle" amendment, that is certainly what it was intended to be. I take the point made about the portcullis. I am slightly surprised by the wording which seems extremely ingenious but it meets the point and I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, first, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's explanation about the use of the words:
  "either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks fit",
  in relation to subsection (2)(c) of the new Section 110ZA. It certainly helps our view as to whether or not that is justified. I understand why no amendment has been proposed and I accept that.
  Amendment No. 39 widens the range of premises which are subject to inspection by substituting paragraphs (b) and (c) for the previous paragraph (b) which referred only to the premises where the trade of an employment agency was carried on. That certainly seems to make sense. I am somewhat concerned about

  835
  the effectiveness of the closing words of the amendment which state that,
  "a private dwelling-house is not liable to inspection under this section unless an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a trade or business is being carried on from the dwelling-house and that the trade or business is not also being carried on from premises other than a dwelling-house".
  That seems to me to mean that if a trade is being carried on at more than one set of premises, you can only inspect the premises which are not a dwelling house even though the records are in fact being kept at the dwelling house. The obvious example is a farm. A farm consists of a farmhouse and probably also barns, milking parlours and cowsheds. The effect of this provision appears to be that the officer is allowed to inspect the cowsheds but not the farmhouse. I am not aware that farmers are in the habit of keeping records in their cowsheds. This renders ineffective the whole power of inspection in a case of that kind. I wonder whether this draft needs further amendment if it is to cover the situation and make it effective. Clearly, we regard it as proper that there should be an effective power to inspect records.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in response to Amendment No. 3 tabled by my noble friend Lord Higgins the noble Baroness spoke about the possibility in the longer term of different powers for different purposes; namely, those of the Inland Revenue and those of the Contributions Agency. In the short term those powers will be different. Does she agree that when the letter is written it is even more important that the business should be told under what auspices the inspector is inspecting? Otherwise, it will be much more difficult for a solicitor or another legal adviser to give the appropriate advice should matters go awry.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should like to respond first to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. Basically, he asks whether employers will be aware if the inspection will be about PAYE or NICs. The aim is to move towards a single visit that covers both tax and NICs. This may involve more than one officer until training in both skills is given. In the interim we want to ensure that the letter from the Inland Revenue to the employer makes clear the purpose of the visit.
  In response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I considered the syntax of this provision and wondered whether the "and" was conjunctive or disjunctive. I am advised that this wording is drawn from the Fraud Act and therefore has a well-established understanding associated with it. It is particularly helpful when it comes to the self-employed. The interpretation that is offered of the disjunctive "and" in the words
  "and that the trade or business is not also being carried on from premises other than a dwellinghouse",
  is that there is a presumption that one goes first to the business premises to see the records. If the business premises did not hold those records one would then have the right to inspect the home address—in this example the farmhouse—to see if they were there. I believe that that is a way of avoiding going first to the domestic premises
  836
  when there are also business premises at which there is a reasonable expectation that the records will be held. That is the intent and the understanding that is attached to the Fraud Act.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, that may be the understanding. However, is the noble Baroness prepared to look again at the wording? That understanding does not appear to bear much relationship to the wording.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, all I can claim in my defence is that the previous government used this wording in two or three other pieces of legislation presumably with the approval, support and scrutiny of the majority of your Lordships' House. But time has moved on and perhaps what we accepted five or 10 years ago we do not accept now. I shall review the wording and try to reassure the noble Lord that it does what we believe it to do. If it does not do so clearly we must return to it. With that undertaking, I beg to move this amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Decisions and appeals]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 47, line 30, at end insert—
  ("19A. After section 171 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 there is inserted—
  "Reports by Inland Revenue.
  171A.—(1) The Inland Revenue shall prepare, either annually or at such times or intervals as may be prescribed, a report on the standards achieved by their officers in the making of decisions against which, by virtue of section 170(6), an appeal lies to an appeal tribunal constituted under Chapter I of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998.
  (2) Any report under this section—

  (a) may be included in any annual report by the Inland Revenue of which a copy is laid before each House of Parliament, or

  (b) may be annexed to any report of the Secretary of State under section 81 of the Social Security Act 1998.

  (3) A copy of every report under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament. unless the report is included in, or annexed to, a report of which a copy is so laid."").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40 I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 42. As noble Lords will be aware from earlier exchanges at Second Reading and in Committee, responsibility for policy and legislation on contracting-out of SERPS will remain with social security Ministers. But the Contracted-out Employments Group (COEG), the unit in the Contributions Agency that administers the system of contracting-out on a day-to-day basis, will transfer to the Inland Revenue with the rest of the agency. Officers of the Inland Revenue will therefore take on responsibility for making decisions and managing any disputes on those decisions. They will follow the procedures set out in the Social Security Act 1998 and the supporting regulations.
  Section 81 of the 1998 Act places a requirement on the Secretary of State to produce a report on the standards achieved in the making of decisions against which an appeal lies to a unified appeal tribunal. Schedule 6 to this

  837
  Bill amends Section 81 to require the Secretary of State to report also on the standards achieved by Inland Revenue officers in making decisions on contracting-out matters. On reflection we have decided that it is more appropriate for the Inland Revenue to produce the report as it will be for it rather than the Secretary of State to monitor the standards. The first of these amendments inserts a new Section 171A into the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to require the Inland Revenue to produce and lay before Parliament a report covering the standards achieved by its officers in making decisions on contracting-out matters. That report could be included in the Inland Revenue's annual report or annexed to the Secretary of State's report under the 1998 Act.
  The second amendment is consequential on the first and removes the now unnecessary paragraph from Schedule 6 to this Bill which requires the Secretary of State to produce the report. We believe that this will clarify the lines of accountability.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to welcome the amendment. I very much regret that the noble Baroness did not see fit to accept the amendment that I tabled at Committee stage to transfer the appeal functions relating to contracting-out appeals to the tax tribunals rather than the social security tribunals. Since that appeared to be a lost cause I did not believe it right to table another amendment at Report stage. This is at least a minor step in the same direction. It is obvious that where decisions are taken by Inland Revenue officers it should be for the Inland Revenue to report upon them. Therefore, I am happy to support the amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am pleased about that. The noble Lord will recall that at Committee stage we suggested that if his concerns proved to be valid, as they might be, and appeals should be to the general and special tax commissioners rather than the unified appeal tribunal system under the Social Security Act 1998, we could rectify the matter by virtue of the Order in Council procedure in Clause 22 and did not need to return to Parliament for further scrutiny. In the light of that the noble Lord was content not to press his amendment to a further round. The matter can be remedied if his forebodings turn out to be valid. However, given the fact that the noble Lord welcomes this amendment and it appears to have the consent of the House, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 48, line 7, after ("decisions)") insert—
  ("(a) in subsection (1), for "subsections (3) and (4)" there is substituted "subsection (3)", and
  (b)")
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41 I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 44. These are both technical amendments to remove references to provisions of the Social Security Act 1998 repealed by the Bill. Schedule 9 to the Bill repeals subsection (4) in Section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 in consequence of the removal to the jurisdiction of Inland
  838
  Revenue officers of decisions about the personal liability of company directors for contributions owed by their companies. Amendment No. 44 removes a reference to Section 14(3) of the Social Security Act 1998 which is being repealed on the transfer of responsibility for decisions about SSP and SMP. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 42.
  Page 50, leave out lines 11 to 20.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Further consequential amendments]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 52, line 1, at end insert—
  ("2A. In section 12 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (late paid Class 2 contributions), in subsection (7), after "commences" there is inserted—
  "(aa) civil proceedings in a magistrates' court commence when a complaint is made;".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Repeals and revocations]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 54, line 39, column 3, at end insert ("and in subsection (6) the word "(2),".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  In the Title:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 45:
  Line 6, after ("benefits;") insert ("to enable functions relating to any of those matters in respect of Northern Ireland to be transferred to the Secretary of State, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Treasury;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

  Registration of Political Parties (Prohibited Words and Expressions) Order 1998
  4.49 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 23rd November, be annulled (S.I. 1998/2873).
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I see "prohibited words and expressions" on an Order Paper, I blanch with horror. I hope that when we have stage 1 of the Lords' reform, your Lordships will feel emboldened enough to sling out this little piece of legislation. The present arrangements are that we do not vote against statutory instruments. I was tempted to break that arrangement. Then the noble Lord, Lord Carter, met me in the corridor and I succumbed effortlessly to his charm. I shall not vote against this order or ask your Lordships to do so.
  The matter is simple: it is whether people should call themselves Independent Labour, Independent Conservative or Literal Liberal. Ever since the brothers Gracchi in Ancient Rome, there have been arguments about factions in politics. I have been reading a book on George III. He always hoped that factions could come out of politics. Unfortunately, factions have now become entrenched in state, started, as almost all bad things started, by the Conservative Party in the form of Disraeli who invented the modern political party. Others have not been slow to follow that example.
  The Independent Labour Party has a long, well-established and historical founding. There was Jimmy Maxton; and a great friend of my father, Andrew Maclaren, who represented the Clydeside constituency in the 1920s, hated private property but managed to make sure that the club of which I am a member bought its own freehold against the advice of the Duke of Devonshire. So one can see how the marvellous, some would say corrupting—others would call it English social mobility—manages to work in this country.
  My objection to the order is simple. Should we stop parties being registered as Independent Labour, Independent Conservative, and so on? People should be able to register a party in whatever name they choose. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will say that it will cause confusion; that it will be unfair. It will be the most wonderful apparatchik's answer because he will have been briefed by the department. I promise the noble Lord that I should say exactly the same to my own Front Bench which would have given exactly the same answer had it been in power. So there is an element of plague upon both your houses.
  Individuals can stand at national elections as Independent Labour or Independent Conservative. Why should we stop them from standing in this new form of proportional representation for the various new assemblies which have been conjured up for our benefit? The British people are grown up, intelligent and mature enough to understand the difference between the official and unofficial—some would say between the real and unreal.
  As one edge of the social spectrum which is not liked by the new First Lord of the Treasury, as an hereditary Peer I pray in aid the old independent Labour working class member. Therefore I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Order, laid before the House on 23rd November, be annulled (S.I. 1998/2873).—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  4.53 p.m.
  Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I support the noble Earl. The order epitomises the fact that it is not good legislation. At Second Reading I said that we have to be very careful when the major parties together produce conditions under which people can stand for Parliament. There is great danger of a carve up.
  840
  At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, drew attention to the fact that between 1948 and 1969 party affiliation was not on the ballot paper. I canvassed in 1955, and during local elections collected 2,000 marks on the register in the Cabot Ward of Bristol, West. It was hard work. It was a bind that one had to din in the candidate's name because there was no indication on the ballot paper. However, this order has been brought in to help the parties and to reduce the work to which they are subjected. It has nothing to do with greater democracy. It is to help the parties.
  When there was no party affiliation indicated on the ballot party, there was no diminution in turn out at elections. In 1951 Labour polled the highest political vote of any party until that time. I know that that is seized on now by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as a reason why PR should be brought in. However, I am sure most Members will appreciate that it was the Conservative organisation of the postal vote which brought it to power in 1951.
  I do not think that the order is proper. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Gould expressed concern that there was no appeal structure; that no proper appeals were possible. The Speaker's Committee is appointed to deal with points raised. However, by definition the Speaker's Committee consists of Members of Parliament who are members of the major parties. Therefore they are interested parties, and there is no clean, independent, procedure.
  The legislation is rather rough. In Committee, at col. 409 of the Official Report on 5th November 1998, the Minister, for whom I have the greatest admiration, said that undertakings had been given by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru and it was his understanding that the Scottish National Party had also said that it will not seek to deceive the voters in that way. Why bother to legislate if we rely on goodwill and people saying, "I'll behave myself'. It is farcical. The Minister continued:
  "Voters are not simple-minded. They are perfectly able to know when deceit is being practised on them".
  In that case one wonders why we have the legislation brought in. Such is my regard for the Minister and his control of language that I shall not point out that on the following page he was guilty of repetition when he used the phrase "true factual". However, we shall leave that matter aside. It is not right to draw attention to it now.
  I hope that my fears are misguided. I should very much like to be proved wrong. We often think that we are tidying up matters but end up in a worse position. An individual with many resources and an unscrupulous aim could almost bring the system to a standstill by abusing the legislation.
  4.57 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I, too, support the noble Earl. It is perfectly true that people will still be able to stand as Independent Labour, Independent Conservative, Independent Liberal candidates, and so on. But they will not be allowed the party political broadcasts, should their numbers be large enough, which would otherwise

  841
  be justified in the absence of this legislation. To that extent the dice are loaded against the smaller parties which I think is wrong.
  4.58 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, raises an interesting point of discussion which is worth consideration. I am interested to note that among the words and expressions which may not be included, except where Article 2(2)(a) applies, are "Duke" but not "Earl". While the "Duke of Omnium's party" would be a forbidden name, the "Earl of Onslow party" would be allowed. I look forward to an election in which the "Earl of Onslow party" is a registered party.
  I have some sympathy with the Motion. At one time the Independent Labour Party was a well known political party which was represented in another place. As I recall history, when the Independent Labour Party was formed no body was known as the Labour Party; the Labour Representational Committee was a different animal. Therefore, there was no possibility of the ILP being confused at that stage with the Labour Party. The ILP was a constituent part of what later became the Labour Party.
  Today, the question is whether a party can be registered with the word of "independent" coupled with the name of another party. That does not directly affect the right of somebody to stand in an election under the description of, say, Independent Conservative, Independent Liberal Democrat or Independent Labour. The rule is that someone can stand as a candidate under whatever label he likes unless the returning officer believes that the name is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with an already registered political party. On the other hand, it is also true that if someone were able to register a party—and, rightly, registration is an extremely simple business—as, say, Independent Conservative, it would be extremely difficult for the returning officer to refuse registration.
  In those circumstances, reluctantly one must conclude that in this case the order is correct. As a representative of a party which has suffered more than any other from confusing labels—it is well known that we lost a seat in the European elections because of a confusing name—I must support the order. I do so with regret because there is a good deal in what the noble Earl has said. I wish that I felt able to support him, but it is important to ensure that the voters are not fooled, as experience has shown possible, by accepting candidates standing under misleading names. If one were free to stand as a member of an Independent Conservative Party there would be no necessity for having any connection with the Conservative Party or agreeing with any of its policies. The name could be adopted simply as a spoiling name. Therefore, I am afraid that if the noble Earl had been willing to put the matter to a vote I would not have been able to support him.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put a point to him. He and his party are justly entitled to object to misleading names such as Literal Democrat. That designation was
  842
  designed especially to deceive the electorate, which it did to the great disadvantage of his party. It is perfectly understandable that he should object to that name. However, can he really object to Independent Liberal Democrat? Can he really imagine that anyone would be fooled by such a designation?
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I sometimes think that all of us in this party are independent Liberal Democrats! Yes, I can object because I do not think of someone standing under that label in an election but of someone registering a party under that name. It would not be correct to allow any party to be registered as "independent" coupled with the name of a political party. After all, in practice, "independent" tends to be used to describe an individual who for some reason or another decided to leave his party and wished to stand as an independent candidate. That may be legitimate. Indeed, I am aware that, for example, a Member of the other place calls himself an independent Labour Member of Parliament. However, it would not be appropriate for him to start a new party called the Independent Labour Party. That would be misleading.
  5.4 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. The House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for tabling the Motion. I shall try to avoid making a bureaucratic point in response.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that his party more than others had suffered from confusing labels. Perhaps I may respectfully suggest that if it wished to avoid that it should avoid changing its name so frequently. That might make life easier for it.
  The debate has shown the difficulty of trying to lay down statutory rules for defining political parties. Indeed, the difficulty is so great that it demonstrates the folly of the Government, by the use of a particular type of proportional representation, in putting themselves and the country into a position where definitions are essential. But having gone that far, definitions are essential. My noble friends and others have concentrated on the use of the word "independent" when allied to the name of an existing political party. We all understand that candidates can stand as individuals—independent Conservative, Labour, or whatever—provided that they can persuade the returning officer that the designation is not misleading. Indeed, there have been independent candidates from all parties. However, a group will no longer be allowed to register itself as a political party using the word "independent"; in particular Independent Labour Party.
  It is astonishing that a Labour Party should seek to abolish the words "Independent Labour Party", given its history. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was right to say that the Labour Party did not exist when the Independent Labour Party was founded in 1893 by Keir Hardie, the year after he was first elected to Parliament as an independent. But it was one of the precursors to the Independent Labour Party of 1900 which subsequently evolved into the Labour Party. The Independent Labour Party continued to fight elections under that name right

  843
  up to and including the 1945 election when the Labour Party not merely existed but was an extremely effective political force. Indeed, the ILP won four seats in that election.
  The present Government are New Labour, which, we are constantly told, is different from Labour. Today, New Labour is rejecting its past in making illegal the words "Independent Labour Party". A government who do not value the lessons of their own history do not value the wider lessons of history. However, I understand why the Labour Party are putting the order before us. I have seen the pamphlet from Ken Coates, the Member of the European Parliament, and his colleagues. Of course, under the new system, we are all having trouble with unselected Members of the European Parliament.
  It is a surprising order to come before us, particularly at a time when so much encouragement is being given from the highest level to a so-called realignment of British politics. It is through independent individuals and independent parties that realignments come about. There is no doubt that this order is intended to inhibit realignments in its specific way. So it is a sorry day for independent spirits, but perhaps a good day for control freaks.
  5.10 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, speaking of which—
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, did the Minister say "of" or "as"?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I said "of". Having had the benefit of a state education I am always perfect in my grammatical construction.
  The order is a little complicated and so perhaps it will help if I explain briefly how it will work. There are opportunities for people to stand—as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said—under various individual designations if the returning officer accepts them under the criterion of the Act passed by your Lordships. For instance, there is no reason why someone who is presently a Member for Yeovil should not stand as the Liberal Democrat (Retired) Party or something of that sort. Indeed, there are prohibitions in the Act itself.
  The noble Earl pointed out his horror at an order being tabled in these terms, particularly under the rubric of a prohibited words and expressions order. However, one sees in Section 3 that the registrar may grant an application unless the designation of the registered party is obscene or offensive. So, if it were to be a case of the Earl of Onslow Independent Party, it would certainly not be obscene, but I am sure the noble Earl would be the first to agree that it might well be extremely offensive—at least when its manifesto was produced because that is one of the characteristics of the noble Earl that we all love and relish so much.
  It is really quite simple. Section 3 of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 sets out a number of tests to be applied by the registrar when deciding whether or
  844
  not to grant an application for registration. It is well worth bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said in that regard. That section deals with registration of a political party. The first critical test is whether the name which the party wishes to register,
  "would be likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered"—
  Section 3(1)(a). A further test—Section 3(1)(f)—is whether the proposed name,
  "includes any word or expression prohibited by order made by the Secretary of State".
  That is the order at which we are looking today.
  I must acknowledge that even for "anoraks" in this field, the order is not an easy read. That is partly because Section 3(2) of the Act provides that this order "may" except a word or an expression from the prohibition in certain circumstances. The order therefore restricts the circumstances in which certain words or expressions may be used, but it does not completely prohibit them.
  I turn briefly to look at the groups of words. Perhaps I should look at them distinctly, though the focus has been on one aspect only. Part I relates to royal words. We do not believe it to be right for parties to adopt names which would imply a connection with royalty where no such connection exists. But Article 2(2)(a) makes it possible to have an organisation registered, for instance, as the "King's Road Residents' Association" or "Friends of the Royal Marsden Hospital". There is therefore flexibility within the order to deal with that sort of situation.
  Part II goes to a number of listed geographical words. That is because we know that in different parts of the United Kingdom candidates from different parties often want to describe themselves, for instance, as the "Scottish Labour" candidate, "Welsh Liberal Democrat" and so forth. That would not be possible if another party had already applied to register as the "Scottish Labour Party" and the Registrar had accepted that application. So the purpose of Part II, taken with Article 2(2)(b) is to prevent that application being accepted. However, it would allow, for instance, the "Welsh Farmers' Party" to register. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru have already been included on the register.
  I turn to Part III, which has been the focus of this debate. It is simply there to prevent the words "independent", "official" or "unofficial" being registered on their own or in conjunction with the name of a party which is already registered. We know that individual non-party candidates choose to describe themselves as "Independent", "Independent Labour" and "Unofficial Conservative". Candidates from registered parties may, on the other hand, want to include the word "Official" in their descriptions. If a party had already registered itself as the "Independent Party", the "Independent Labour Party", the "Unofficial Conservative Party" or the "Official Liberal Democrat Party" and the registrar had accepted those applications, then there would be a limit on individuals standing in the cause of independence which is so dear to the heart of the noble Earl who criticised this matter.

  845
  Therefore Part III prevents those applications being accepted. Prevention of registration of those words has the beneficial consequence that they remain available for the individual candidates. What we have done in this apparatchik approach to politics is to retain the possibility for individual candidates who want to stand as "Independent", "Independent Labour" or "Unofficial Conservative" to have that designation on the ballot paper. That is a completely different concept from the registration of the party. We have therefore safeguarded the individual's opportunity to stand as an "Independent", "Independent Labour" or "Unofficial Conservative".
  For completeness, Part IV ensures that certain generic words or phrases cannot be registered by a single party. One cannot register as the "Ratepayers' Party" but one could, for instance, register as the "East Ham Residents' Association".
  Far from being a conspiracy of those in power to prevent the usurpation of that power through the ballot box, we have protected the individual. Following that explanation I am sure that all noble Lords will be abundantly and comprehensively satisfied.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will take this opportunity to clear up one misconception in the debate; that is, that the Independent Labour Party never took the title of "Independent" to be independent from the Labour Party which did not exist, but sought to be independent from the Liberal Party and others and therefore set a very good precedent for Labour Party operations today.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. It was all a development of the organisations which became the Labour Representation Committee started by H. M. Hindemann—if I remember O-level history correctly—at the end of the 19th century. My noble friend therefore is quite correct.
  5.17 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Carter, did not have so much charm. I have never heard a better apparatchik answer than that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He would have been a senior mandarin at an ancient Chinese court; he would have done excellently as a eunuch at the court of Constantine.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, senior mandarin, yes; but "eunuch" no.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I use it in its official capacity rather than in its literal capacity.
  I can understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but it seems to me that the whole of that speech—as with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—is based on the premise that the British people are too stupid or are not intelligent enough to understand the difference. I happen to think that my fellow citizens form part of the most mature, sophisticated democracy in the western world. Ever since decent elections have
  846
  been fought in 1832 they have almost invariably got exactly the right answer. They may have gone slightly over the top in 1997, but let us leave it at that.
  Having said that, I hope—I suppose there is no hope of this—that perhaps the matter can be looked at again at some stage because a deeply illiberal bureaucratic streak goes through that order. However, as our traditions say that we do not yet vote against standing orders and slightly because of the charm of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital) (Fees) Regulations 1998
  5.19 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 10th December 1998 be approved (S.1. 1998/3087) [Fourth Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1998.
  The main effect of the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) regulations is to increase fees for microfiche-based products, including the basic company search, as well as the fees for a number of labour-intensive services. The basic company search currently costs £3.50. The effect of these regulations would be to raise it to £5. The price of searches made by post would rise correspondingly. Currently, about 1.5 million microfiche searches are made each year. The numbers involved in the labour-intensive services are much smaller, closer to 15,000 a year.
  The increase in prices of microfiche products arises because the costs of running these services are substantial and essentially fixed. As customers increasingly use better and more modern ways of accessing information, demand for microfiche falls. That leads to a rise in unit costs. The alternatives to which customers turn are mostly electronic, and Companies House is providing an increasing range of information electronically. The charges for these are not being increased.
  The last increase in microfiche services fees was in 1996. Despite a continuing fall in demand since then, it has been possible to postpone any increase until now. The new fees will allow Companies House to break even on provision of microfiche services. It is obliged to ensure, so far as practicable, that there is no cross-subsidisation of costs by revenue from other areas of activity.
  A fee of £10 for registration of a charge has also been introduced in order to eliminate an element of cross-subsidisation from the fee charged each year for registration of a company's annual return. Some 10 per cent. of the 1.25 million companies on the company register have a registrable charge to be entered each year.
  The Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital)(Fees) Regulations introduce equivalent fees for similar services provided by Companies House to those provided for companies.
  The overall aim of these fee changes is to prevent Companies House going into deficit in the next few years. During that period, Companies House will be investing heavily to complete the transition to electronic information collection and dissemination. Its progress can be seen and experienced at first hand at its new information centre at 21 Bloomsbury Street, which I am pleased to say opened for business today. At the end of the current period of investment, there is likely to be little demand remaining for microfiche. In the meantime, it is to be expected that there will be further increases in years to come in fees for microfiche services, but reductions elsewhere as demand for newer services increases. I commend the regulations to the House.
  Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 10th December 1998 be approved (S.I. 1998/3087) [Fourth Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the two statutory instruments. Perhaps I may join with him in speaking to both on this occasion.
  I imagine that not many in your Lordships' House know what an open-ended investment company is. I would have been one of those people a week ago. However, having investigated the matter, I am delighted to say that they are an area of growth and they offer flexibility, simplicity and transparency, all of which seem to me to be key issues in financial matters.
  The microfiche service is required at the moment but I share the Minister's hopes that it will not be needed for long. I worry that every time prices increase, they do so largely to the detriment of small firms. It seems to me that Companies House may be going backwards. I suspect that the Minister will say that that is due to investment costs. However, I am pleased to say that under our administration in 1994 to 1996, costs fell by 12 per cent. I would be interested to know the benchmark of cost reduction that is looked for now. Because of that fall in costs, fees were able to be decreased. I imagine that there was some consternation in industry to receive a statement from the Government that fees were decreasing. That probably happens rarely.
  Do these regulations apply also to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? It is bureaucratic to go all through this process each time to increase fees by the percentage that we are doing. Is it not possible to increase fees by a percentage unless it is voted against? I believe this is the sort of saving for which Mr. Milburn may be looking.
  What is being done to benchmark and control the costs of Companies House? I find it strange that one can ask for costs to decrease and to be managed without targets, objectives or benchmarks. Unless this is managed well, costs will rise. We have seen something
  848
  of much greater importance today concerning national insurance where a change in the systems management has really increased costs which will, in the end, be paid by taxpayers.
  I have no objection to this Motion being passed. However, as the Minister said, there must be no cross-subsidisation. I hope that the Minister will give a positive answer in relation to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
  Lord Razzall: My Lords, I do not claim to be an expert on open-ended investment trusts. However, I would claim to be somebody who comes from a generation of solicitors who, when in training, spent a considerable amount of time, in the pre-electronic age, poring through documents with the Registrar of Companies at Companies House. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who I am sure did exactly the same, has just left his place.
  The world has progressed significantly since those days of non-electronic searches. However, I believe that the most significant point about these regulations is that, notwithstanding the development of the electronic search and the other sophisticated search mechanisms now available, the two fundamental principles remain the same. This is not just a question of companies having to undergo an obligation to file documents for which they are charged a fee; there is also the public service element of company searches, to which the noble Baroness referred.
  Before we pass these regulations today, as undoubtedly we will, can the Minister confirm that that public service element is dealt with in this pricing structure on the basis that a profit is not being made by the Registrar of Companies, by Companies House, as regards these fees? In particular, the second regulations represent a significant increase in fees. The Minister indicated that that was on the basis that the Registrar of Companies would be able to use the money to invest in new processes. I think I heard him say that that would not be effected at a profit.
  However, bearing in mind the importance to the public, and in particular to small businesses and creditors who need to use the services frequently, can the Minister confirm that this is not being done to increase profit for the Treasury but simply to cover the cost of the service?
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, for their reception of the regulations. In response to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may advise her that an open-ended investment company with variable capital is an investment vehicle in corporate form which can buy and sell its own shares. It is quite rare. Usually, it is a way of investing in this country from abroad. I believe that the noble Baroness identified it correctly.
  The noble Baroness is also right that the use of microfiche is declining. For those of us who, like the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, have had the misfortune of

  849
  having to use such things and to set little metal arrows skittering across sheets of glass in order to find the pages of an annual report, annual return, memorandum or articles, which have been photographed and which have dust around the edges, the sooner that microfiche goes, the better for all concerned. However, some people—notably the London agents—find microfiche more convenient than electronic searches. Therefore, it is not possible for us, without withdrawing a public service, to withdraw microfiche searches altogether.
  I said in opening that this is the first increase in fees since 1996. That was accompanied by a decrease in the cost of electronic searches. So, for most people, there is no particular loss.
  The noble Baroness asked whether in a sense Companies House was not going backwards. That is certainly not the case. The noble Baroness applauded the efficiency of Companies House under the previous administration. That efficiency has continued and, indeed, increased. For several years, Companies House has had a target unit cost reduction of 3 per cent. per annum. In the past two years, it has achieved a unit cost reduction of between 5 and 6 per cent. per annum. Therefore, there is no question but that Companies House is continuing its efforts to provide an economical as well as an effective service to the community.
  The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked me for an assurance that the public service element is still dominant at Companies House. I can give that assurance without any qualification. The intention of Companies House and the basis on which it was set up as a trading fund is that it should break even; in other words, it should not make a profit out of its activities. At the same time—this is the reason for the change—it is not supposed to cross-subsidise one service from the profits of another because that would raise questions as to favouritism for one type of customer as against another. Indeed, it would probably be against European Community regulations as it would involve an illegitimate subsidy.
  The only qualification to what I have just said is that, as I said in opening, Companies House has a substantial capital investment programme at present for both electronic services on its own intranet, for which customers pay an entrance fee and a monthly fee and are then billed at the end of the month for their use of it, and for the much more limited internet facilities which it provides. At the moment, very limited facilities are available on the internet, including access to the register of disqualified directors and guidance to Companies House services. So investment is included in the calculation of the break-even provisions which Companies House is obliged to obey.
  Lord Razzall: My Lords, without wishing to labour the point, I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that cross-subsidies become complicated when the allocation of capital and of central overhead come into question. I am certain that the principle adopted is exactly as the
  850
  noble Lord indicates; I merely wanted him to re-confirm the principle that this will be done on a break-even basis.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I have done that adequately. I believe that the assurances for which the noble Lord asked are contained in government policy and in the accounting procedures of Companies House. On that basis—
  Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not yet replied to my question about whether the provisions cover Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. With a Scottish DTI Minister sitting on the Bench next to him, I imagine that we know the answer.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that I had got away with that. The provisions certainly cover Wales. As the noble Baroness knows, Companies House is based in Cardiff. I do not think that the provisions cover Scotland and Northern Ireland, but, if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness. That is my fail-safe procedure. I commend the regulations to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1998
  5.34 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 10th December 1998 be approved (S.I. 1998/3088) [Fourth Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1998
  5.35 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st December 1998 be approved [Second Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first statutory instrument standing in my name. It may be convenient if I give a brief explanation of each legal aid regulation we are considering. I shall deal first with the regulations which concern assistance by way of representation.
  These regulations extend the availability of assistance by way of representation, which is a form of advice and assistance, as a consequence of the introduction of restriction of liberty orders and drug treatment and

  851
  testing orders through the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 respectively.
  First, we propose that assistance by way of representation should be available to cover all proceedings in relation to the variation or revocation of the restriction of liberty order or, as the case may be, the failure to comply with any of the requirements of the restriction of liberty order under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
  Secondly, we propose that assistance by way of representation should be available to cover all proceedings in relation to the variation or revocation or review of a drug treatment and testing order or the failure to comply with any requirement of a drug treatment and testing order under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Assistance by way of representation is the most straightforward means to ensure that legal aid is available in relation to such proceedings.
  The Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations are entirely consequential on the extension of assistance by way of representation. The proposed changes remove the availability of criminal legal aid for proceedings in relation to the variation or revocation of a restriction of liberty order or the failure to comply with any of the requirements of a restriction of liberty order. Similarly, criminal legal aid will no longer be available for proceedings in relation to the variation or revocation or review of a drug treatment and testing order or the failure to comply with any requirement of a drug treatment and testing order. These changes will ensure that there is no duplication in the system and that no administrative inefficiencies are introduced.
  The regulations make provision for useful improvements to the system of legal aid in Scotland. I commend the instruments standing in my name to the House.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st December 1998 be approved [Second Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
  Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we have no comments on the regulations and agree to the Motion.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1998
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st December 1998 be approved [Second Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) Regulations 1998
  5.39 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th December 1998 be approved [Fourth Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) Regulations 1998 is to establish the Clinical Negligence Franchise Panel as a prescribed panel for the purposes of Section 32(7) of the Legal Aid Act 1988.
  Section 32(1) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 creates a general right for a person receiving advice or assistance or representation, to select the legal representative to advise, assist or act for him from among the legal representatives willing to provide advice assistance or representation under the Act. That right may be qualified under regulations made under Section 32(7), so that the person receiving assistance may only select from legal representatives who are for the time being members of a prescribed panel. These regulations give effect to the decision announced by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 16th July 1998 in his written reply to the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, following the response to his consultation paper Access to Justice with Conditional Fees.
  I turn now to the regulations. Regulation 1 provides for the way in which the regulations are to be described and the date on which, subject to parliamentary approval, they are to come into force; namely, 1st February 1999. Regulation 2 provides interpretation of important terms used in the regulations. I do not wish to go through them, but it may at this point be convenient if I briefly mention that the term "clinical negligence" has been used in preference to the more usual "medical negligence", because the word "clinical" encompasses all members of the medical and clinical services, including other health professionals such as radiographers, dentists and nurses. It is, therefore, more accurately descriptive of negligence claims brought against health professionals.
  Regulation 3 establishes a panel of authorised litigators, which is to be called the clinical negligence franchise panel. This will be comprised of those litigators who hold a franchise contract with the Legal Aid Board. A condition of holding a franchise contract will be that the firm contains a solicitor who is a member of the Law Society's medical negligence panel of the Association of Victims of Medical Accidents' panel.
  Regulation 4 sets out the scope of the regulations in relation to particular types of claim; it limits the right of an assisted person to select a representative under Section 32(1) of the 1988 Act, which I have already mentioned; and makes clear that other powers enjoyed by the board to limit representation for civil legal aid pursuant to a contract are not affected by these regulations.
  The establishment of the clinical negligence franchise panel continues the Government's reforms of legal aid. An essential element of the reforms is to direct legal aid funding to those who need it most and to do this through providers of legal services who have demonstrated a recognisable standard of administrative efficiency and specialist expertise. All firms which wish to obtain a clinical negligence franchise must, therefore, satisfy the Legal Aid Board's franchise quality assurance standard and have, as a member of that firm, a solicitor who is also a member of one of the two accredited panels that I have already mentioned.
  I think that there is almost universal agreement in the profession that medical negligence cases require a particular expertise. Success in clinical negligence cases rests on specialist expertise. Specialist expertise is achieved through experience. Experience is gained by practice. Firms which take on only one or two clinical negligence claims a year are unlikely to have the same levels of experience and skill as a firm which takes a number of cases per week. That is perhaps demonstrated by the fact that the results obtained in cases funded by legal aid demonstrate conclusively that lawyers who are members of the Law Society or the AVMA panel (the Association of Victims of Medical Accidents) achieve better results. They not only win more cases, but they also obtain better results; for example, in 1996–97 cases run by panel members achieved an average sum of damages of £48,500 compared with only £21,800 for non-panel member lawyers.
  Directing clinical negligence claims to only those franchised firms with a contract will not reduce access. There will be an adequate number of contracts granted to enough firms to ensure that the expected number of clinical negligence claims (around 6,000 a year) can be dealt with. In areas of the country where there may be few franchised firms with contracts, it will be a condition of the contract that, where necessary, solicitors will travel to meet and take instructions from their clients.
  I should point out that the establishment of this panel will not mean that no new lawyers can enter this field of litigation. The requirement is that the firm holding the franchise must have a panel member as the supervisor of the franchise. Lawyers joining that firm will be able to gain experience in a contracted firm, and achieve accreditation to one of the panels. Subject to meeting the franchise standards, they will be able to obtain contracts and be included in the prescribed panel.
  There will be a comprehensive publicity campaign to bring to the public's attention the new category of clinical negligence and where and how they can obtain the advice and assistance that they need. Posters and leaflets are being produced to explain to the public the need to see a solicitor who is a member of the panel. That information will be made available in libraries and other public places as well as in citizens advice bureaux, law centres and other legal advice agencies. The leaflets will also inform people about the Legal Aid Board's "phone in" service, which is being provided free of charge and will provide information on which solicitors' firms have clinical negligence contracts. In addition,
  854
  solicitors themselves are being informed of which firms have gained contracts so that they can refer potentially new cases to them.
  From 1st February those on the panel will be granted contracts to undertake work on behalf of assisted persons with clinical negligence cases. After that date, and subject to an exception that I will come to, only firms on the panel will be able to conduct these cases. The exception is in respect of the 2,000 firms which currently have a franchise contract to conduct personal injury cases, which has until now included clinical negligence work. They will be entitled to continue to work on new clinical negligence claims but only until 31st July, by which time they will have needed to qualify for a clinical negligence franchise.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th December 1998 be approved [Fourth Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has given us a fairly full explanation of the regulations and I am sure that we are all grateful for that fact. However, perhaps he will enlighten us on two matters. First, we need to know more about the nature of the membership of the panel. If it were to consist largely of lawyers that would not help. Those appointed need to be people who have clinical expertise—that is to say, medical, dental and nursing expertise. I say that because the decisions they will have to take will, I believe, require such expertise. Therefore, can the noble and learned Lord give us some idea of the sort of people who will be chosen to serve on the panel? Secondly—and I only infer this from what he said—but will the noble and learned Lord be more specific and say how long it will be before the panel is appointed?
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Opposition give a qualified welcome to these regulations. We entirely accept that it is important for the country that cases of the complexity of clinical negligence cases receive the best possible specialist advice available.
  In drafting the regulations, I note that the Government have relied heavily on two statistics. The first is that in 1996–97 the average claim litigated by specialist solicitors, who belong to one or other of the two specialist associations, yielded £48,000; and the second is that two-fifths of the cases which were begun by solicitors operating under legal aid did not conclude either in settlement or in a successful outcome as a consequence of litigation.
  I ask the noble and learned Lord to look at those statistics very carefully if he is to use them as a basis for developing the system set out under the regulations. As far as concerns the average figure of £48,000, one would expect specialist solicitors to deal with the more complicated and higher-yielding cases. Therefore, I am not at all surprised to learn that specialist solicitors litigating in clinical negligence cases obtain a much higher return for their clients than solicitors who litigate negligence cases, in general. One would expect ordinary personal injury solicitors to be instructed in clinical negligence cases of less importance.

  855
  As regards the figure of two-fifths, one of the reasons why a large number of clinical negligence cases do not end either in settlement or in court actions is that, in many instances, there has to be a big initial investment of money before a legal adviser is in a position to assess risk. In my judgment, the figure of two-fifths is not at all out of the ordinary. I hope that the Government are not reading too much into it.
  Having said that, your Lordships' House should support the intention behind the regulation. I express concern only about the fact that there seem to be so few specialist solicitors available at the moment to deal with clinical negligence cases. I also express concern that the geographical distribution of these solicitors is so uneven. I understand that there are only 20 properly qualified solicitors in Wales and hardly any in the East Anglian area. Either the experts will have to travel a long distance to meet the victims or the victims will have to travel a long distance to meet the experts. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has given this due consideration. I hope that he will be able to reflect further upon this matter before the end of this debate.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
  Let me first deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In effect, these regulations limit the firms of solicitors who can obtain legal aid for the purpose of medical negligence cases. They do not set up any sort of adjudicatory panel; they simply identify that you can get legal aid for a clinical negligence case only if you are on the panel that the regulations set up. The suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about having non-lawyers on the panel is not quite the point of the regulations. The date on which the panel comes into force is 1st February 1999.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made the point that we should not set too much store by the two statistics that were relied on—namely, the result or success rate as between those who will become the panel and those not on the panel—and we should not set too much store by the size of the damages because you would expect the more experienced lawyers to be doing the bigger cases.
  One should not look at any statistic in isolation; one should look at the whole picture. Applying the existing panel as a guideline for the firms that will be on the panel, they achieve success in 28 per cent. of the cases they are involved in; those not on the panel achieve a rate of success in either 17 or 18 per cent. That is quite a significant statistic. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that one should not be too influenced by the amount of damages recovered, but again it is of significance.
  The statistics support one's own instincts. Medical negligence cases are very difficult and involve great sensitivity both in the assessment of evidence and in dealings with clients. It would be much better if people of experience conducted these sort of cases. It is not surprising that the statistics tend to support the view that those who have experience tend to get better results.
  856
  One's instincts and also statistics tend to support these regulations. In those circumstances, I commend the regulations to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Business
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Clerk calls the next business, may I remind the House that the police inquiries referred to in the Question could result in court proceedings some time in the future. Noble Lords taking part in the debate should be aware of the relationship that exists between Parliament and the courts and should be restrained in what they say.

  Horse Racing
  5.53 p.m.
  Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the way in which the current inquiry into possible criminal activities in horse racing is proceeding and, in particular, whether they consider that damage could be done to the reputation of jockeys who are arrested and subsequently released without charge in the course of the inquiry.
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I fear that we have been caught somewhat on the hop—if that is the right expression in a debate dealing with horse racing—because the expected business in your Lordships' House is as unpredictable as the running of the horses which are so close to the subject of this debate.
  Let me say straightaway that, although I am the spokesman for culture, media and sport on these Benches, sport is something that I usually leave to one of my younger colleagues. On this occasion I have, on my own initiative, decided to ask this Question. I am very grateful to those Peers who have put their names down to speak in this debate. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, is not in his place, but we are almost up to strength. Those who miss listening to this debate will have the opportunity to read what was said in tomorrow's newspapers.
  I have been a passionate racegoer since my early childhood—I might say even my pre-teen years—and this resulted in something of a misspent youth. I have become a reformed reprobate in that I hardly ever bet these days—I cannot afford to do so. I do not own horses—although I have owned bits of horses in the past—and I have even given up tipping horses. Last year I tipped the winner of the Derby at 33–1 to quite a large group of friends at Sunningdale Golf Club. I have retired because, like my right honourable friend in another place, I wish to leave at the top—and I cannot beat that.
  I wish to question the Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, about the unprecedented situation that exists at the moment. Racing, like politics, has always abounded with rumours. There have always been rumours of scandals in racing. That happens wherever there are large sums of money—and gambling, after all, is one of the motives

  857
  of racing. Some people might like to deny that, but nevertheless gambling is a strong and important part of the world of racing.
  I cannot remember there ever being a situation where, out of the blue, a number of prominent racing personalities—most of them jockeys—have been arrested and taken for questioning in the full glare of publicity. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when answering the debate, may like to deal with that point. It seems to me that in any judicial practice it is extremely unsatisfactory for arrests to be made in the early hours of the morning in the full glare of publicity. Who told the newspapers and television companies that those arrests would take place in the early hours of the morning?
  I have been driven to ask this Question by my concern for the people—most of them jockeys—who were arrested and charged. They were then bailed. They assisted the police with their inquiries and were then discharged. I am fully aware of the warning that was given before the start of this debate, I do not wish to address any individual case.
  To my certain knowledge, the result has been that the family life of a number of the jockeys—perhaps all of them—has suffered a good deal. They have been fully aware—as sportsmen with a short earning life are always aware—that anything which impinges on their integrity in the public arena in which they perform will inevitably affect their careers in one way or another—mud sticks. I would like to ask the noble Lord a fundamental question. Is it not at least unsatisfactory that these inquiries should have gone on for so long? It seems to me with my knowledge of racing—other noble Lords may know more about this than I do—that the sport has been governed admirably over centuries by the Jockey Club. In these modern times the Jockey Club employs experienced and expert security officers who are always alert and on the look out for irregular occurrences in the world of racing. Vigilance is the key. I would never say that racing is whiter than white, but nor would I say that it is irredeemably corrupt. My view is that it tends to be nearer white than corrupt. Nevertheless, in every field the unexpected happens.
  It seems to me that something must have been going on because undoubtedly the Jockey Club's security services must have seen something which led them to report to the stewards of the Jockey Club events which needed to be investigated and which were likely to lead to criminal proceedings. So good so far. However, why should there be this spate of arrests of jockeys and these investigations which have now gone on for well over a year with full press coverage, some of which is extremely helpful and accurate but some of which is ludicrous? On the ludicrous side, I read suggestions that jockeys may knowingly have ridden horses that had been doped. Anyone who has any knowledge of horses, particularly thoroughbred horses, realises that knowingly to ride a horse which has been doped, particularly with a sedative as opposed to a stimulant, would be suicidal. It is the same as driving a Formula One motor car knowing that the wheel nuts are not
  858
  tightened. Therefore I discount that theory and I dare say that during the inquiries that has already been discounted.
  In the normal course of events, when allegations of this kind are put to the police by the Jockey Club—quite correctly as it has no statutory right to take an inquiry any further—would the police normally interview people who might be involved in activities of the kind we are discussing? Surely these people would not normally be arrested without being interviewed. Has there been a difficulty in interviewing people the police thought could be helpful in their inquiries?
  Jockeys have suffered most from these events. As I understand the position, these jockeys have mostly been arrested in the full glare of publicity and they have helped the police with their inquiries. This is a way of trawling through the complicated world of racing in order to get a better picture of what is going on. One cannot expect police officers to be experts on racing. Racing is a part of our leisure activities and an important business. It is also part of our heritage. It is a complicated area of activity. One would not expect the police to have any profound knowledge of racing. It seems that the police have gathered their information by means of arrests.
  I do not particularly sing the praises of the judicial systems of other European countries. However, it seems to me that under our adversarial system the police gather facts. In a country with an inquisitorial system such as France, it is likely that if the Societe d'Encouragement—which is the relevant body in France—felt that a case needed to be answered, presumably an examining judge or magistrate would conduct an inquiry and complete a dossier. Witnesses would be called—one could call 80 jockeys if one wished—and a stigma would not be attached to a jockey going through that procedure. I and many others believe that the prolonged procedure in this country, with no charges of race fixing or anything of that kind being laid, indicates that the police have experienced great difficulty in confirming the charges that were alleged.
  I do not criticise the system or the police inquiries. The inquiries have been prolonged, but that is the way the police have seen fit to conduct them. However, the effect on the families and professional careers of those who have been arrested and released pending further action has been devastating. In my more than 50 years' experience of racing I have never encountered so much concern among the people involved in racing. My early childhood hero was the late Lord Mildmay. As a small boy I used to follow him round, watching him ride his own horses wearing a brace, as his neck had been broken. I am afraid that he was largely responsible for my misspent career! I mentioned that today to the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, who probably represents the same kind of public figure. I hope that he will write about this matter. I note that he is not present tonight. I should have liked to hear him speak on this matter. I hope that the Minister will agree that I am right to be anxious about the way these proceedings have been carried out and the effect on those who have been arrested and who have had their lives disrupted.
  6.7 p.m.
  Lord Sandberg: My Lords, there is an old adage which says that where there is money, there are crooks. I believe that is an adage which still holds true these days. Many years ago a well-known US conman—I believe his name was Willie Sutton—when asked by his arresting officer why he always tried to work his scams on banks, famously replied that that was where the money was. As an ex-banker I am glad to say that he spent more time inside prison than outside. However, he might have added racecourses to his schemes, as increasingly that is where the money is.
  As a former bank chairman and a previous chairman of the stewards of the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club, I have seen all too many attempts to defraud. In the case of racing it is generally the poor old public who are the victims. There are, of course, many ways of fixing a race. Doping horses is, I suggest, the most heinous but probably the most crude. It is by no means the only way to fix a race. As we all know, a clever jockey can achieve victory by superlative riding, as we have seen in this country. All of us who are interested in horse racing become excited when we see a jockey almost carry his mount over the line when people thought there was no hope. Of course a clever jockey can also fix a race by contriving to be slow out of the stalls, by giving his horse too much to do at the finish or perhaps by apparently getting his horse unluckily boxed in and thereby unable to obtain a real run when it is needed. The possibilities are almost endless.
  My noble friend Lord Falkland said that gambling is an integral part of racing, and of course it is. The punter, always thinking that he is right, will blame something for his own mistakes—the jockey has pulled the horse, the going is bad. It is always somebody else's fault, not the punter's. The time taken over this case only tends to reinforce those who feel that they have lost money not from their own fault but from that of the people who ride.
  I do not condone any of the tricks, however clever, that may be perpetrated; but equally, like my noble friend, I cannot condone the tactics sometimes employed in apprehending persons suspected of foul play. It may be necessary to arrest suspects at dawn, but it is not for the press and TV cameras to be present. It can only be by inspired leaks from the authorities that they so fortuitously turn up when arrests are made.
  As an occasional but not very successful follower of horse racing, I heartily applaud when culprits are brought to justice, whether by the police or stewards on the course. The duty stewards of the day initiate inquiries and although they are in my experience meticulously fair to the jockey, trainer or, even occasionally, owner, they are not subject to the constraints of a court of law and can generally come quickly to a decision. As an aside, when the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, came to Hong Kong to help with an inquiry, he thought the methods there were about as thorough as he had ever come across in the world of horse racing and far better than court proceedings. In the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, we have someone who knows a thing or three about racing.
  860
  I fully realise that the police may be required to become involved from time to time and we can only welcome attempts to keep horse racing as clean as possible. I like to think that we will not in future have the unedifying sight of the media's lights flashing at supposedly surprise raids on the houses of jockeys and trainers. That is manifestly unfair on persons who are subsequently released without charge or who are exonerated after a trial. Sometimes, such behaviour smacks of the exact opposite of one of the fundamentals of English justice, which is that a person is deemed innocent until proven guilty.
  I do not know what undertakings the Minister can give, but I hope that he will assure us that the privacy that all citizens in this country should unquestionably enjoy before full police investigations or a trial will be preserved in future dawn police raids.
  6.13 p.m.
  Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate. I am fully aware that the matter is sub judice and that a number of issues cannot be discussed. When I put my name down to speak, I wanted to share with your Lordships a number of matters surrounding one investigation but I have been told that they too are sub judice.
  I can do no more than endorse the remarks of the noble Viscount and noble Lord. We must remember that one is dealing with young people at the height of their careers—not only jockeys but others who have been implicated. The consequences of wrongful arrest and the possible damages that could be commanded should be looked at seriously. It is strange that so many people should have known of particular cases almost in advance. We should celebrate the good humour that many young people have shown in what have been extremely difficult times for them.
  This debate has taken place at a quicker pace than we might have thought. I urge the Minister to move the inquiry along as soon as possible. If he wishes to have any of the information that I know, I shall be happy to share it with him.
  6.14 p.m.
  Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate and I declare an interest as a race-horse owner, albeit that I am without a horse as we speak.
  Many, including the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, have stated outside your Lordships' House that we should not be having this debate as the whole matter is sub judice. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, wants us to be careful for the same reason. I find it hard to go along with that. First, no one has been charged. Secondly, the inquiry has been dragging on for two years and nothing has been proved. I am told, albeit it unofficially, that the Jockey Club is fed up because the situation is not doing the sport any good and it wants to give up the whole matter. I hope that happens soon.

  861
  I hope that this debate will increase pressure on the Fraud Squad to put up or shut up. The whole racing fraternity is fed up to the back teeth with the whole saga. They ask how can there be dirty tricks with TV monitors in every bookies, trackside cameras all around the course and a mobile camera following the action.
  Horses are not machines. They have their off days just like us. They have strains and bellyache just like us. They get toothache and backache just like us. The difference is that horses cannot speak and all too often their aches and pains go unnoticed on the day. My daughter showjumps for Great Britain, to my immense pride. Last year, she went to the European Young Rider Championships in Lisbon. The horse went extremely well but on coming back to Scotland, then down to London for the Horse of the Year Show it went dreadfully—knocking down fences everywhere. One does not get in a British team with horses that knock down fences. That performance was unusual, to say the least. It turned out that the horse had a blood cell imbalance. As I said, horses are not machines, but animals that need to be looked after carefully.
  We all acknowledge that racing is a gambling sport. The money is huge at the top and dreadful at the bottom. Racing is in a mess and the industry needs a shot in the arm of adrenaline, not distrust and skull-duggery—especially where there is no evidence of any wrong-doing. The other day yet more jockeys were arrested.
  If a horse has a wind problem and the jockey sees a mammoth fence coming up, the sensible thing is to stop; otherwise, the jockey is likely to hurt himself or his horse. All too often, the horse—which the jockey will not own but is worth a lot of money—is not insured. Equally, if the horse is not particularly brilliant and enters a race with a small field, one hopes that the others will make a mistake, so that the horse can come through and win a share of the prize money.
  The main problem is that the racing game is all about money. The bookies are not putting enough into the sport. The whole industry, except for the bookmakers, agrees that is so. We need a stronger Tote and a more cohesive racing world in Britain. Sheikh Mohammed's withdrawal of 100 of his horses is just the tip of the iceberg. The question is being asked more and more around racehorses and stables today whether the bookies started the inquiry as a means of diverting attention from the lack of their contribution to racing. This at a time when there is a crisis in the labour market. We are not begetting, to use that marvellous biblical word, enough small people these days. Everybody is too tall to become a jockey.
  The modern labour force does not want to work seven days a week and our Government do not want to let it do so. Another problem is that trainers are not rich enough to have sufficient tied cottages to house their staff. So there is a problem of where to put everyone.
  I am forced to ask: do members of the Fraud Squad, based in London as they are, understand the world of racing? I gather that they are asking some weird questions of those whom they are so publicly arresting and in relation to whom they are subsequently dropping
  862
  charges. Have they perhaps read too many Dick Francis novels—excellent works of fiction as they are—and believe that fiction is necessarily interfaced with fact? Too many people have now been arrested and let go. Their reputations suffer. There is a stain on the character, as anyone who has been falsely accused of an offence can testify. It is not a nice thing to have against your name. People's lives are being turned upside down in the full glare of the media for transparently no reason at all. It is giving the wrong impression about the sport to the general public.
  People in horse racing are there for the love of the horse and the love of the sport, whether it is myself in the world of showjumping, my noble friend in the world of eventing, or those in racing. It does not matter. We are all there for one reason, and one reason only. Racing and the equestrian world as a whole provide a fantastic sport. It is one where the working man meets the aristocracy; where the rich and the poor meet on equal terms; where the horse becomes part of the human jockey on its back and suffers from all the foibles of such a marriage. We are followers of the sport of equestrianism because of the uncertainty of that marriage between horse and rider, whether jockey, trainer, owner, or humble stable-hand.
  Where there is money, there are of course occasionally dodgy deals. But no more true in our industry than it is in the City, the big world of finance, or the local shop. We merely have to visit any stable around Britain to feel the palpable excitement that exists. As Jamie Osborne, the jockey, and one of those accused and later released without charge, has said:
  "Nobody is going to betray this sport in the way the police believe it has been betrayed".
  I say to the police, the Fraud Squad and the Minister: before any more damage is done, let us put this matter to bed once and for all. The police must stop wasting public money looking for something that is simply not there. They must stop messing with people's lives. They must either bring a case to court now or go away and let us horse lovers try to resurrect our sport to its proper standing in this country. It is a great sport, offering so much to so many. We must not let this nonsense denigrate it any more.
  6.22 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate. As the speeches have indicated, such a debate is useful. It is neither ridiculous nor ludicrous, as it was described by one noble Lord in this morning's Racing Post. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, is present.
  I must declare an interest too. In my time I have been a punter and an owner. I have trained point-to-pointers; I have even ridden in point-to-points. I hesitate to use the word "jockey". A jockey is usually someone who helps the horse round the course. I was a burden on the horses that I rode, as a cursory look at my riding record would show. However, after a great many circuits of various point-to-points, I finally managed to win the local members' race.

  863
  We must remind ourselves that the British racing industry is a major employer and generator of revenue for the Government and the betting industry. Racing and breeding support some 60,000 jobs in this country. A further 40,000 people are employed in the betting industry. Over 70 per cent. of that industry's business is concerned with horse racing. Racing and breeding exports are worth over £90 million a year. Income generated by racing and breeding exceeds £600 million annually. Racing and breeding raises around £150 million a year in tax, and in excess of a further £300 million a year in betting duty through betting on horse racing. And, most important, some 5 million people attend race meetings annually. That places in context the importance of the sport and to how many people the sport matters.
  Turning to the Question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, when the Jockey Club security department uncovers any prima facie evidence of criminal activity, as a non-statutory body it has a duty to present such evidence to the police. In this investigation evidence was first presented to the police in February 1997, and since then the responsibility for the matter has lain clearly and properly with the police. The Metropolitan Police has sole responsibility for the criminal investigation, including the arresting and charging of individuals.
  There are concerns, and one should note the timetables. In February 1997, the Jockey Club security department passed evidence to the police. The first arrest took place on 27th January 1998. The last arrest took place on 13th January 1999. This investigation has been going on for nearly two years. That is a long time. Progress has been slow. Fifteen people have been arrested but, as has been pointed out, no one has yet been charged.
  Rather than commenting on the matter, perhaps it is best to quote some of the comments in the racing press. First, perhaps I may quote from an article in the Racing Post for Thursday, 21st January, which stated:
  "the racing industry's frustration was further fuelled by news from Scotland Yard that the probe is to have its third change of leader within four months".
  On 24th January an article in Sunday Business stated:
  "The direction of the police investigation has certainly looked confused at times and, according to one of those interviewed by the police, their knowledge of racing is limited".
  It is not surprising that their knowledge of racing is limited. My point, however, is that there are concerns within the racing industry.
  Perhaps the best quotation that I can offer to your Lordships is from an article by Brough Scott, a distinguished racing commentator. He wrote:
  "Pursuit is one thing, but how close are the hunters to actually bringing down their quarry? Dawn arrests of leading figures who are then released without charge—and in some cases … without interview—does not give the impression that the hunt is on the scent. It looks more like a pack galloping around heedless of who it harms".
  That is the impression in the racing industry. I am sure that the Minister will take note of it. There have been dawn raids, arrests, bail, re-bail; in some cases there have been arrests and it has taken 10 months for those arrested to be cleared.
  864
  The British Horseracing Board is aware that the length of the police investigation has been a source of concern and that last week's arrests have fuelled anxiety in some quarters about the impact of the investigation on the image of racing. I understand that it is the board's view that,
  "the overwhelming priority is that such investigations should be both independent and thorough, thereby ensuring that everything possible is done to safeguard British racing as a sport with a reputation for integrity which is second to none".
  I fully endorse that statement.
  The British Horseracing Board goes on to state that,
  "while recognising that such cases are intrinsically complex and can, inevitably, be time-consuming, the Board shares the view that it is in the best interests of racing, and of those directly involved, that the investigation should be brought to a conclusion as speedily as possible".
  On 12th January the board wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service to that effect. That is the view of those in racing. It is not our view on this side of the House; I merely point it out to the Minister. I am sure that he will take on board those concerns.
  This is a difficult situation. No one has been charged, but the industry is affected. One commentator has said:
  "the mud is beginning to stick to the sport of racing as comprehensively as it would in a three-mile chase at Plumpton in heavy going".
  Anyone who has been to Plumpton in heavy going will understand how the mud sticks there. Jockeys are being looked at. Rightly or wrongly, a jockey is often presumed by the public to be the most obvious accomplice because he has the best opportunity to affect the result in any coup. Anyone who knows about racing knows that most of the time that is not true.
  None of us can pretend that racing is completely clean, but nor is it bent, as are some other sports which are racked by drugs and gambling scams. I believe that the majority of racing is a clean sport; there are distinguished people in it; and the punter is extremely well protected, by and large, by the Jockey Club, the British Horseracing Board and the others involved.
  I cannot leave the matter without taking the opportunity to ask the Government whether they are still seriously considering the proposals of the British Horseracing Board with regard to transferring the Tote to the board and the replacement of the levy system with a single system. That should enable the Government to concentrate on gambling regulation and deregulation and leave racing and the betting industry to enter into commercial agreements which will be for the benefit of racing and betting as well as the Government. I realise that the Minister will probably not give me an answer on the future of racing tonight, but I am sure he understands that I must use the occasion to make the point.
  I shall wind up by saying that most of us have to accept that when our horses do not win, whether we are owner, trainer, jockey or punter, it is not because the industry is bent. It is because we have picked the wrong horse and another horse has run a better race. Alternatively it may have been better trained or better ridden. But there can only be one winner in a horse

  865
  race. In every race there are bound to be those who are disappointed. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I realise that while he is restricted in what he can say this evening, he will undoubtedly have listened carefully to all the points which have been made.
  6.31 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount was trying to lead me astray but I shall not get bogged down in the question of the Tote or the betting levy. As I have said on past occasions, I have had many years' experience of acting for and against all the major bookmakers, including the Tote; so I have a certain knowledge of the background.
  There is little I can offer by way of specific detail. The police investigation of the allegations which were made by the Jockey Club is active and continuing. One should bear in mind what the Jockey Club has said:
  "This investigation has generated adverse publicity. The last thing the Jockey Club wants is for the sport it regulates to be damaged. However, if public confidence is to be maintained, it is vital that allegations of malpractice arc thoroughly investigated and where such allegations are proved, appropriate action is taken against the perpetrators".
  It seems to me that in that citation the Jockey Club has put its finger on the point. After all, it has the interests of the sport very much at heart since it regulates it in many important ways.
  I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg: the right of individuals to a decent respect for their privacy. In the context of what a number of noble Lords said, if it is suggested—and these are allegations and counter-allegations in the nature of things—that there was wrong police behaviour in any context at any time, there is, of course, the avenue of complaint which any aggrieved citizen in this country has: namely, the Police Complaints Authority. Alternatively, if there has been unlawful behaviour by any police officer, the opportunity to sue for damages is available to a jockey, trainer or anyone involved in racing in exactly the same way as it is open to any other citizen of our country.
  There is a balance between the public interest in demonstrating that such an enormously successful and important industry is cleanly run and the protection of the private individual: he is entitled to his privacy, even though he earns his living in the public arena.
  A number of points were made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. He asked whether it was normal to arrest before interview. That is a matter within the discretion of the investigating officers. It is not abnormal, in my experience. He mentioned some continental jurisdictions and the way they do things there. I would not be enormously happy in introducing continental methods of inquisition into our system. Often they take longer, notoriously, and people are kept in custody for a long time. Without being unduly chauvinistic, I think by and large we do things better here, having a proper balance between the public interest and private rights.
  Some investigations take a long time. I speak from personal experience at the Bar; for example,
  866
  investigations into the arcane problems of local government corruption. They take a long time because they are difficult to investigate. A number of noble Lords rightly said that investigating racing or allegations of malpractice in the racing context is not easy.
  I reiterate what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said: racing is a very successful industry, it has a good tradition, it has proved itself to be adaptable and responsible to challenge. I hope its inherent strength and popularity will continue. But if one wants strength, it depends on public confidence. Any allegations of wrongdoing must be thoroughly investigated. That applies in the racing context, as it applies in local government and in business, in any kind of allegedly criminal activity. I stress the word "allegedly". It would be quite wrong of me to indicate anything about whether the police investigation is being properly carried out, whether the timescale has been right or what my private views might be about the guilt or innocence of those involved in the investigation. It would be utterly wrong.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, was courteous, helpful and scrupulous in the way that he confined his remarks. I am grateful for that. With his domestic background he will be able to confirm that in the breeding of thoroughbreds anyway the hereditary principle has some demonstrable virtue!
  I do not believe that anyone has been prejudging the outcome. I understand the force and vigour with which the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, expressed himself. I must be more cautious because it is quite wrong either to prejudice a prospective defendant or to prejudice a prospective prosecution. I emphasise the single adjective "prospective".
  It is not for the Government in a free society to interfere in operational policing or investigative matters. There are other continental jurisdictions where we have seen too often that state interference with police investigations has been extremely dangerous.
  I am sorry that one or two noble Lords made adverse references—indeed sometimes rather harsh references—to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I do not think there is anyone who is a more honourable, dedicated and committed supporter of clean racing in this country. I am bound to say that I personally found any criticism of him disagreeable and it would have been better left unsaid. He was expressing a personal view, honourably held. I suggest that he was perfectly entitled to have his own views and to express them.
  The history briefly is the following: a serious complaint was made to the Metropolitan Police by the Jockey Club in March 1997. The club's view is that if it has serious allegations, it has a duty, as any other citizen does, to bring it to the attention of the police. It discharged that duty. I suggest that had it not done so it would have been criticised as being in dereliction of its duty.
  The organised crime group of the Metropolitan Police was given the inquiry and it has been carrying

  867
  on its investigations since May 1997. The allegations focus on a conspiracy to defraud. They are being undertaken by a team of officers led by a detective superintendent. I can assure your Lordships that the case continues to be the subject of reporting between the Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service and there has been close and extensive consultation between the Crown Prosecution Service and Crown Counsel. To date 16 arrests have been made, six have been eliminated from the inquiry, the remaining 10 are on police bail, nine are due to return on 10th March this year and the other one on 17th March.
  That is the up-to-date material that I can put before your Lordships. It will not satisfy your Lordships because, in the nature of these debates, we are all
  868
  treading on extremely thin ice and I have reminded myself of the advice given by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey to all of us:
  "It is quite wrong to prejudice either a possible prosecution or possible defendants".
  I do recognise the concerns that have been expressed. They have been fully ventilated, not just in the racing press but in the press generally, and I can assure your Lordships that the Metropolitan Police want an appropriately prompt outcome, as does the CPS; but you cannot always prosecute every case on the basis that it is simply "shoplifting a banana from Tesco's". This is quite difficult territory; it is quite difficult to investigate. I take note of the concerns which have been expressed by your Lordships. I fully understand the spirit of them and I can assure the House that the CPS and the Metropolitan Police are alert to them.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.

  Securities and the GDP
  Securities and the GDP
  GDP: Local Area Figures and Eurostat
  GDP: Local Area Figures and Eurostat
  Sudan: Destruction of al-Shifa Medicine Factory
  Sudan: Destruction of al-Shifa Medicine Factory
  Joint Helicopter Command
  Joint Helicopter Command
  Aircraft Carriers
  Aircraft Carriers
  Unauthorised Signs on Roads
  Unauthorised Signs on Roads
  Marine Nature Reserves
  Marine Nature Reserves
  Vehicle Emission Standards
  Vehicle Emission Standards
  EU Research Council, 22 December
  EU Research Council, 22 December
  Agriculture Council, 18 and 19 January
  Agriculture Council, 18 and 19 January
  Lupus Erythematosus
  Lupus Erythematosus
  Sex Offences: Review
  Sex Offences: Review
  Children: Abuse of Trust
  Children: Abuse of Trust
  Electronic Commerce: Risk of Attack
  Electronic Commerce: Risk of Attack
  Drug Smuggling into Prisons
  Drug Smuggling into Prisons
  Christopher Sherwood: Shooting Incident
  Christopher Sherwood: Shooting Incident