Sitting of 28 January 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: What assessment the Treasury has made of the (a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of private finance initiatives. [66514]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The private finance initiative is one of the forms of public-private partnership by which the Government are harnessing private sector finance, innovation and management skills to modernise our infrastructure and improve public services. This Government, unlike the previous Government, are making the PFI work in areas such as the NHS. Since the election, we have signed £4 billion of PFI deals.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Treasury investigate reports that a PFI secret deal led to three Edinburgh hospital buildings and their land being sold off to a private consortium, which stands to make £200 million by developing the land for housing, and will collect £30 million of public money per year for 30 years to build a new hospital, which will never become public property? Is it not a scandalous misuse of public money to encourage public asset stripping and privatisation of the NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: Those are more rightly matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, there are no PFI secret deals. This Government, unlike the previous Government, have opened up the whole process of PFI, so that local communities, the staff affected by the deals and the public who are served by the facilities that are built through the PFI have the right to know from the outset what the PFI is delivering for those communities. Unlike the previous Government—who managed to spend £30 million on lawyers' and accountants' fees in the NHS to try to get the PFI going, but did not build a single hospital—this Government have launched the biggest single new hospital building programme that the NHS has ever seen. We should be proud of that record.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: The experience of my constituents in the village of Hodnet—who want a bypass built by means of the PFI—directly contradicts the previous two replies from the Minister. As soon as the Government came to power, there was a review, new rules were laid down and the bid was prepared. However, another review has been launched. When will this reviewing stop, and when will clear guidelines be laid down so that people know where they stand?
    Mr. Milburn: As usual, the Tory party is living in a dream world rather than the real world. The Government have signed £4 billion of PFI deals since the general election. What is more, during the next three years, we will sign a further £11 billion of PFI deals to modernise our health service, to improve standards in education and to improve the infrastructure that the hon. Gentleman talks about in local communities such as his own.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: May I welcome the fact that the Government have been able to go ahead with the building of a new Edinburgh Royal infirmary? The people of my constituency and my part of Scotland have been waiting for that for years and years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather bizarre that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) regards that as a scandal? It is very good news.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should stop chuntering for a moment. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We fought the general election on a manifesto commitment to reinvigorate the PFI, and that is precisely what we have done. The consequence is being felt in communities up and down the land, and not just in terms of the NHS. We have signed our first PFI deals in the education sector for new schools to be built—including in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), where Falkirk council has concluded a PFI deal to replace five existing schools, with £65 million of new investment. There is more investment to come, with £350 million of PFI deals in the schools sector during the next three years. That is an important and successful record. In addition, not only are we making the PFI work, but we are doubling the public sector net investment in our economy, so sadly neglected by the Conservative party.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Pursuant to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), will the Minister answer a straightforward question? Does he believe that one disadvantage of the PFI system is that improvements in the public infrastructure will never become part of public ownership?
    Mr. Milburn: Of course not. These deals are only given the go-ahead in the first place if it is demonstrated that they provide better value for money than the public sector comparator. There are strict rules about such deals in education and in health. Unlike the previous Government, we have been completely open about the comparisons between the public and private sector options to build.

    Health and Education
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: If he will make a statement on his plans for public spending on health and education for the next three years. [66515]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Government's spending plans for the next three years on health and education were set out in the comprehensive spending review White Paper, "Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform". We are providing money for modernisation, and we will invest an extra £40 billion in health and education in the coming three years.
    Mr. Caplin: May I give my right hon. Friend some figures about local services? The comprehensive spending review will bring £30 million to local health services in Brighton and Hove, and already more than £1 million has been spent on local schools. That is desperately needed finance on health and education, which we were denied under the previous Government. The Labour party wants a just and fair approach to public spending, which the comprehensive spending review provides. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this party intends to continue that approach in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Brown: First, I can tell my hon. Friend that this Government's third Budget will be announced in the afternoon of Tuesday 9 March. Secondly, on health and education expenditure, the average spending per constituency on education over the next three years will be £200 million, and on health, the average in the same period will be £236 million. In May, the electorate will be able to choose between a Conservative party that would not spend that money—and which says that our plans are reckless and mad—and a Labour party that will invest in health and education, and keep its promises.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: If the reports of above-inflation increases in pay for nurses and teachers are correct, they are to be welcomed, after years of basic and phased awards. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the amounts being reported amount only to a catch-up, not to real increases? Will he ensure that the funding for the increases is transferred from the contingency reserves to ensure that the quality of education and health elsewhere is not cut?
    Mr. Brown: I shall answer the question about pay, but let me point out to the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman that, whereas his party's election manifesto asked that £1.8 billion a year be spent on education, to a total of £5 billion over three years, the Government will spend £19 billion—four times as much—over the same period.
    The Liberal Democrat manifesto also said that the party would spend £700 million a year on the health service, and a total of £2 billion over the next three years. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government will spend £21 billion over that period—10 times as much. I shall take no lectures from Liberal Democrats about meeting our fiscal rules and increasing public expenditure.
    On public sector pay, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to be disciplined on public spending across the board. We will meet our fiscal rules and show
    458
    the firm discipline set out in our three-year plans. The Government's policy has always been driven by the need to recruit, retain and motivate in the public services. However, we will not compromise our hard-won reputation for economic competence and fiscal prudence.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I acknowledge the major increases that my right hon. Friend has earmarked for school services, but will he tell us how the Government will ensure that every extra pound allocated goes into the classroom and towards the provision of teachers? Does he audit the expenditure of the moneys by local education authorities? Sometimes the impression is that my right hon. Friend allocates the money, but that it does not go straight into school services.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Not only have we allocated £20 billion to education and £20 billion extra to health, but we have set in place public service agreements that will ensure proper monitoring of the targets and value for money.
    The Conservative Opposition said that it was wrong for the Government to scrap the assisted places scheme and to put that money into cutting class sizes for children aged five, six and seven. However, 100,000 pupils now benefit from that measure, and we will keep our promise that all children will be in classes of fewer than 30 pupils. Equally, we will keep our promises to improve numeracy and literacy, to increase the staying-on rate in schools, to get half a million more people in further and higher education and to provide lifelong education. We will do exactly the same for health. The Government will not only invest the money but, as my hon. Friend requested, we will ensure value for money.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: May I welcome the Chancellor' s announcement of expenditure on health and education over the next three years? The £200 million will make up for a shortfall on past spending in Northern Ireland. Will the Chancellor seek to ensure that trusts budget properly for community care so that we can overcome bed blocking and make proper use of residential care?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is making sure that health and social services organisations work together, and I am sure that that will also be the case in the Northern Ireland Office. I was pleased to announce a few months ago our Northern Ireland initiative to help underpin the peace process with economic improvement. Every person who is long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland will benefit from the new deal, and Northern Ireland will pioneer the extension of the new deal to that group. In addition to extra money for health and education, we are ensuring that opportunities are available for the hon. Gentleman's constituents to get back to work.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Has my right hon. Friend read today's report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which concludes that the Government are on course to meet their borrowing and spending targets, and will avoid recession? The report comes in the same week in which a KPMG report on my part of the country concluded that Norfolk was in good shape to face any increased business pressures from the continuing effect

    459
    of the strong pound and turbulent world markets. I read yesterday of a similar outlook for business in London. Is my right hon. Friend encouraged by that evidence that his policy of economic stability is working despite the efforts of the Conservative party to talk us and wish us into recession?
    Mr. Brown: We are steering a course of stability in a troubled world economy. The measures that we have put in place, including the independence of the Bank of England—opposed still by the Conservatives—were the right measures to create a long-term framework for monetary and fiscal stability. My hon. Friend is right about the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who said that our plan to spend £40 billion on health and education was a reckless spending spree. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had lost control, that we were spending through the roof year after year, and that it was madness to embark on our spending programme. I ask Conservative Back-Bench Members to tell the shadow Chancellor that they agree that health and education deserve the extra £40 billion.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: There are widespread rumours, most recently in yesterday's Mirror, that in order to fund higher social security spending, the Government intend to abolish tax relief on mortgages, which would cost the average mortgage holder £240 a year in extra taxes. Is that yet another example of the Government's creeping stealth taxes, or can the Chancellor reassure home owners that he has no such plan?
    Mr. Brown: First, the shadow Chancellor is already on record as proposing the abolition of mortgage tax relief. Secondly, social security spending rose by 4 per cent. a year under the Conservative Government, to pay for unemployment. Under us, it is rising by less than 2 per cent. a year for the next three years.
    The difference is that we are investing in proper services for the elderly and for children. The Conservatives wasted money paying the bills of unemployment. The Conservative Treasury spokesmen should be applauding the Government: the first 200,000 people are joining the welfare-to-work programme, 50,000 young people have jobs and youth unemployment has fallen by 41 per cent. However, they are against even the new deal. The Conservative party is not fit for Government, and it is not fit for Opposition either.

    Low-Income Families
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If he will make a statement on progress with his plans to help working families on low incomes. [66516]
    Caroline Flint: What measures he is taking to increase the net income of those in low-paid work. [66529]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Government have introduced a number of measures to increase the net income of low-income families. Measures include the introduction of the national minimum wage, reform of national insurance contributions and the introduction of the working families tax credit.
    460
    Together, those reforms will provide a guaranteed income for families in full-time work of £190 a week, or £10,000 a year. More than a million people will benefit from the working families tax credit.
    Dr. Ladyman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. His measures to help low-income families will help hundreds of families in my constituency and throughout east Kent. Those people will have been astounded and horrified that the Tories and Liberals opposed the working families tax credit on Monday. Will he promise to examine each year his minimum income guarantee and increase it when he can afford to? Does he agree that what the Tories mean by putting clear blue water between our two parties is that, because they intend to scrap the working families tax credit, they mean to become, even more than now, the party of the rich, and use their clear blue water to trap low-income families in poverty?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right, but even rich people are against the Conservative party now. On his constituency point, 100,000 men and women in the south-east of England will benefit from the working families tax credit. Throughout the country, more than 1 million people will benefit. For the first time, this country will have a minimum family income of £190 a week, or £10,000 a year, and income tax bills will not be sent until £220 a week, or £11,000 a year, is being earned. That is a major advance. The country will want to know why the Conservatives oppose the new deal, the minimum wage and now the working families tax credit. Even Sir Winston Churchill supported minimum wages. Why is the Conservative party now against fairness for people in work?
    Caroline Flint: The one in nine families in Don Valley who will benefit from the working families tax credit will welcome the opportunity to earn £10,000 a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is nothing short of scandalous that the Opposition opposed the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal, which has halved youth employment in my constituency? I hope that the next time that he is in South Yorkshire, he will take the opportunity to hammer home the message that the Conservatives are the party of poverty and mass unemployment, and that we are the party fighting social injustice.
    Mr. Brown: Most people will agree that the behaviour of the Conservative Opposition in opposing the working families tax credit does no credit to their traditions. In Yorkshire and Humberside, 125,000 families will benefit from its introduction next October. When people understand that there is a minimum family income of £10,000 a year for all who can work and that work pays more than benefits, they will see that we have made a big advance in employment, social security and tax legislation.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the working families tax credit offers huge bonuses for dishonesty? Why does he think that the United Kingdom will succeed where Canada failed? A similar system had to be withdrawn there because of massive fraud.
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is an expert on north America, perhaps he will consider the experience of

    461
    the United States economy, where people have benefited from the earned income tax credit after its introduction by a Republican Administration and its extension under a Democratic one. Our people will want to know why something supported by Ronald Reagan is unacceptable to the hon. Gentleman. That is a lurch to the right even for this Conservative party.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Chancellor accept that in the areas with the lowest average incomes in these islands, such as South Yorkshire, Merseyside, Cornwall and Wales, people look to objective 1 funding from the European Union to boost local economies? Will he confirm that up to now, the UK has taken only one third of the money available from those funds and will he categorically assert that matching funds will be available, over and above current expenditure, to ensure that those areas maximise the benefit of European funding?
    Mr. Brown: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that when I was in Wales on Monday, I was able to announce that modern apprenticeships, which will help the industrial economy of Wales, will be extended from 9,000 to 15,000 people there. Thus apprenticeships, which were dying out under the previous Government, are not only back but modern, and a 50 per cent. increase will be achieved.
    In all the European negotiations, we shall protect the position of the regions and argue their case. Some 65,000 families in Wales stand to benefit from the working families tax credit and from the minimum wage, which will be introduced in April.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Low-paid people in my constituency welcome the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit. They also welcome the Government's measures to keep inflation low, to increase child benefit and to reduce VAT on fuel. Their message to my right hon. Friend is that he has done an excellent job. Will he assure them that he will continue to do so?
    Mr. Brown: I am glad that the working families tax credit is welcomed in the north-west, but it is not welcomed by the Conservative party. On the "Today" programme, the shadow Chancellor said:
    "The first thing that should be done is to abandon these crazy plans to increase costs on business. The minimum wage is one of them".
    The 2 million people who will benefit from the minimum wage in April will never vote Conservative again.

    Exchange Rate Mechanism
    Mr. Graham Brady: What representations he has received on the possibility of Britain entering the exchange rate mechanism. [66517]
    Mr. John Cryer: If he will make a statement on Britain's future relationship with the European exchange rate mechanism. [66530]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Government have no intention of rejoining the exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the Chancellor for that answer. If he does, however, intend to keep open Britain's options
    462
    of joining the euro in 2002 or before, how does he plan to ensure that Britain complies with article 109j of the Maastricht treaty, now article 121 of the Amsterdam treaty?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should know that the resolution that came out of Amsterdam said clearly:
    "Participation in the exchange-rate mechanism will be voluntary for the Member States outside the euro area."
    I believe that that answers his question. Any questions about the Maastricht treaty would be better directed to the shadow Chancellor, who signed it.
    Mr. Cryer: My right hon. Friend will know that the Bank of England has already signed an agreement with the European central bank called "ERM II", which is effectively the new exchange rate mechanism. We are, therefore, already in the new exchange rate mechanism and the bands will narrow as we approach 2002. How does that affect the Government's neutrality on the single currency?
    Mr. Brown: I must correct my hon. Friend: the Government have no intention of rejoining the exchange rate mechanism. We are not part of it.
    Mr. Francis Maude: If the Chancellor wants guidance on this important article of the Amsterdam treaty, formerly the Maastricht treaty, may I remind him that it requires not membership of the ERM, but observance of the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the ERM for at least two years? That obligation is in the treaty, and the Government will be obliged to follow it if they wish to keep that option open. Does he agree that it is a serious requirement for any country that aspires to join the single currency?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman should read what was said at Amsterdam. The Amsterdam European Council resolution of June 1997 said:
    "Participation in the exchange-rate mechanism will be voluntary for the Member States outside the euro area."—
    [Interruption.] I know that Conservatives are obsessed about every detail of treaties, but I remind the shadow Chancellor that he signed the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Maude: That provision is still in the treaty, and it is there for a serious purpose: to ensure that, before an economy joins the single currency, it shows the right degree of exchange rate stability. Therefore, at some stage the Government will have to change the Bank of England Act 1998 in order for the Monetary Policy Committee to shadow the euro rather than pursue a domestic inflation target.
    Mr. Brown indicated dissent.
    Mr. Maude: The Chancellor shakes his head in a complacent and dismissive way. Does he agree with Gavyn Davies of Goldman Sachs, who said that, at some point—[Interruption.] The new Chief Secretary should listen, because the Government will have to deal with this

    463
    point if they insist on railroading the country towards a single currency. Gavyn Davies said:
    "at some point the Bank of England will have to be told to 'shadow' the euro (instead of inflation) for a two-year period to stabilise exchange rates ahead of joining".
    Does the Chancellor agree with that?
    Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor is right on one thing: it will be the Labour party that has to deal with those matters right into the next century, because we shall be in government and the Conservatives will be out of government. As for the resolution of Amsterdam, let me repeat:
    "Participation in the exchange-rate mechanism will be voluntary for the Member States".
    I have said clearly to the right hon. Gentleman that we have no intention of rejoining the ERM. It is only the Conservatives who are obsessed by the ERM, and we now know why that is: when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury, the Conservative Government took us in, and we had to leave ignominiously as a result of their mistakes.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the ERM, but is he aware that the later the date set for our entry into the euro, the more difficult will be the conditions applied to us? Will he take that into account when deciding that date?
    Mr. Brown: I set out the Government's position on economic and monetary union in October 1997 and I see no reason to change that position. In principle, we are in favour of monetary union and being a part of it, subject to the economic tests that I have set down being met. I have said that it is not a realistic option to join in the current Parliament, but that we shall consider it in the next Parliament and apply those economic tests. Incidentally, in October 1997, I also said that we had no intention of rejoining the ERM, and I am absolutely consistent on that as well.

    Comprehensive Spending Review
    Jackie Ballard: What plans he has to repeat the comprehensive spending review. [66518]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The comprehensive spending review was a root-and-branch examination of departmental programmes to ensure that public spending was directed to the Government's priorities during the remainder of this Parliament and beyond. A further review will take place in 2000, when the plans set out in the comprehensive spending review will be rolled forward for the next three financial years.
    Jackie Ballard: Will the Minister admit that the Government made a blunder when they stuck to the Tory spending plans for the first two years? Does he accept that the results of that blunder have been real pay cuts for teachers and nurses, worsening morale and recruitment difficulties? Will he promise not to repeat that blunder when he repeats the spending review?
    Mr. Milburn: As usual, the Liberals want to have their cake and eat it. I thought that the hon. Lady was rising to
    464
    thank the Government for the extra investment in her constituency: Somerset county council's standard spending assessment is to rise by 6.5 per cent. from April this year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is more: Somerset health authority's spending is to rise by 3.8 per cent. in real terms from this April. When we entered government, we had to take tough decisions because of the reckless mess in which the Tories had left us, but the fruits of that are now being seen in the fact that we shall meet our tough fiscal rules while maintaining our commitment to extra investment in our schools and hospitals from April this year.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: The comprehensive spending review was a splendid initiative which released billions of pounds for our health and education services. My question relates to the national register of assets—those bits and pieces, lay-bys and so on, around the country that the Government allegedly no longer need to own. New Covent Garden market is valued at about £45 million, but its being sold off will do tremendous damage to the fruit, vegetable and flower market in central London. Will my hon. Friend reconsider the issue, perhaps with his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
    Mr. Milburn: I was not aware that my hon. Friend had a constituency interest in New Covent Garden market—perhaps he is a frequent visitor. I can tell him only that any sale has to meet strict value-for-money tests.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Why do we have to wait until 2000 for the new comprehensive spending review? Should not it be initiated right now, starting in the right hon. Gentleman's own Department? How come the son of the manse has suddenly abandoned his frugality and started chartering aeroplanes and helicoptering around Bangkok? What about his right hon. Friend from across the Pennines, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who appears to have acquired the soubriquet "Concorde Jack"?
    Mr. Milburn: Of all the serious questions—health, education, employment or social security—that the hon. Gentleman could have raised at Treasury Question Time, he and the Conservative party have not a word to say because they think that our spending plans are reckless. It is about time that they came clean about which schools would close, which hospitals would close and which social security spending would be cut. We know that they would get rid of the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, with dire consequences for millions of people.
    On the hon. Gentleman's question, he knows as well as I that there are strict rules governing the issue. We abide by those rules, which are the same as those that were applied when his party was in government.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that some Labour Members are not very happy about the fact that some people want to live the high life and fly in Concorde? I have been here long enough to see dramatic change on this issue, and 20 years

    465
    ago, when the previous Labour Government were in office, the cry from Tory MPs was, "Why aren't Ministers flying in Concorde?"
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend knows, consistency has never been a Tory strong point.
    Madam Speaker: That hardly relates to the issue, as I might have suspected.

    Withholding Tax
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What recent representations he has received regarding the withholding tax. [66519]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the draft directive on the taxation of savings. We have received a number of representations on that subject. Most have expressed their concern about the potential effect of the draft directive on the eurobond market. We share that concern and I have already made it clear that we believe that eurobonds should be excluded.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Bearing in mind what the hon. Lady said last December, if eurobonds are excluded, why have not the Government decided to veto the matter, or do they intend to show that it would introduce a system that would only increase transaction costs?
    Dawn Primarolo: We have made it clear in the negotiations on the draft directive that we believe, first, that eurobonds should be excluded; secondly, that the best way forward is exchange of information and, thirdly, that we would not agree to any measure that would seriously damage Britain's interests. We are negotiating according to what is best for Britain.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the Minister confirm that the Government are opposed to tax evasion, that the withholding tax is an attempt to deal with tax evasion and that if the withholding tax is formulated to protect the eurobond market, it is worth pursuing? Does she share my view that on tax co-ordination, the Conservative party is suffering from selective amnesia, given that in the early 1990s, under Norman Lamont, the previous Government agreed to VAT proposals in the most substantive measure of tax co-ordination that this country has ever had?
    Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend's point about the importance that the Government place on effective international action on tax evasion. However, in negotiations on the draft directive, we have continued to make it clear that exchange of information is the best way forward, and I repeat that eurobonds should be excluded from the draft directive.
    On the consistency of Conservative Members, it was the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) who signed the memorandum and introduced proposals to the House on the VAT rate of 15 per cent. Before that, the deputy leader of the Conservative party also signed
    466
    that memorandum. They do not have mere collective amnesia—it is verging on dishonesty—about what they did in government.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to withdraw that accusation.
    Dawn Primarolo: I was referring to the dishonesty of a Government, Madam Speaker, and I was not for a moment inferring that individuals were dishonest. Of course I withdraw the remark.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Paymaster General, whom I congratulate on her new title, assure the House that she understands that transaction costs represent as much of an invisible threat to the competitiveness of the City of London as withholding tax represents a visible threat?
    Dawn Primarolo: We have continually made it clear as a Government—as I have in answering questions in the House—that protection of the European financial markets, especially the City of London, is very high on the Government's agenda. We would not agree to anything that seriously damaged that market.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: The hon. Lady has rightly said that she wants to protect the eurobond market, but does not the fact that that market consists of unregistered bearer bonds make her favoured solution of information provision impossible? Does not she accept that information sharing is as damaging to the City as a withholding tax? Will she make it clear that the Government will veto any such proposal?
    Dawn Primarolo: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the proposal. Although I am repeating myself, I shall make it clear again that we want eurobonds to be excluded from the directive and will not agree to anything that either seriously damages the City of London or is not in the best interests of the British economy. The hon. Gentleman is slightly confused in his questioning. Perhaps he would tell the House whether he thinks that eurobonds should be within the draft directive or agrees with us that they should be excluded?

    Euro
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the launch of the euro. [66520]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt)rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Something has been said that I did not hear. [Interruption.] I did not hear whether any hon. Member used a term of abuse. [Interruption.] Order. Was it Mr. Gibb? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I believe that you insulted half the population, Mr. Gibb, by referring to "stupid" women. As I happen to be a woman, I would like an apology from you.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: If I inadvertently insulted an hon. Member, I withdraw the remark.
    Ms Hewitt: The Government welcome the successful launch of the euro, which reflects the extensive planning

    467
    and preparation carried out by Governments, firms and institutions. In the City of London, conversion procedures were completed with no serious difficulties. Over the conversion weekend, some 30,000 London staff were involved in adapting systems and preparing for the successful start of euro trading. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in praising their efforts. It is thanks to them that London is ready to be the leading international centre for euro trading.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that British business very much welcomes the Government's approach to European monetary union, believing it right that business be helped to prepare for the euro? Does she agree with me, and, indeed, firms in my constituency, many of which are major multinationals, that to follow the Conservative party's policy of turning our backs on Europe would be not only disastrous for the United Kingdom economy but totally barmy?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A successful euro will be good for Europe and good for Britain. I welcome the fact, as I know he does, that the information campaign that we ran last year doubled awareness among small and medium businesses of the need to prepare for the euro, and trebled the number of businesses that are making preparations. Given that half our trade is with the euro area, it is essential that every business, in his constituency and across the country, takes advantage of the opportunities that the euro creates.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: The hon. Lady's extraordinarily smug reply about the City of London's preparations had absolutely nothing to do with the Government, and more to do with the City's effectiveness and primacy in world markets. Does she agree that, despite the fact that, naturally, more businesses are aware of the euro, the Government need, with greater vigour, to redouble their efforts in order to ensure that many more businesses receive practical help in understanding the nature of the euro's impact on them?
    Ms Hewitt: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman apparently did not wish to join me in congratulating the City of London on its success in preparing for the euro, but I am pleased that he supports the efforts that we have been making to urge business to prepare, and I am glad that he supports the very practical steps that the Treasury and its departments are taking to ensure that business has the information that it needs—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen to the reply. We shall continue to do everything necessary to ensure that British businesses prepare for the euro and are successful in trading with the euro currency area. I am just sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not interested in helping British business succeed.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Is my hon. Friend aware that many firms in Northamptonshire—not major multinationals, but quite small firms—already have euro bank accounts, and are working with the euro and effectively regard it as a working currency here? Is she aware of the KPMG report that showed that only 5 per cent. of city firms support the Conservatives' option on
    468
    entry to the euro, and that some 30 per cent. support the Government's option? Does she agree that the pretence—encouraged by the Conservative party—that the euro is preventable is profoundly damaging for the economy and this country's interests?
    Ms Hewitt: I am very aware of the great interest that my hon. Friend takes in this subject, and I am sure that businesses in her constituency are grateful for the help that she has given them. I entirely agree with her about the need to ensure that businesses are fully involved in making a success of the euro, and I agree that the Conservative party has effectively moved from being simply against the euro to being against Europe.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Are the Government aware that, yesterday, the Bank of America decided not to proceed with additional commitments to the City because of uncertainty over British entry to EMU? Following that decision and the earlier loss of the German bond market from the LIFFE—London international financial futures exchange—market to Frankfurt, what further evidence do the Government need that British exclusion from EMU is deeply damaging to the interests of the City of London?
    Ms Hewitt: Yesterday, at a meeting—chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—of the Standing Committee on Preparations for the Euro, it was clear from what the Governor of the Bank of England and representatives of the City of London said that, as I said earlier, the City of London is taking every advantage of the opportunities created by the euro, and will continue to ensure that it meets competitive challenges and retains its position as the leading international centre for trading in euros.
    Mr. Giles Radice: While I congratulate the Government on the attitude that they are taking and on the way that they are trying to prepare industry for the opportunities of the euro, does my hon. Friend agree that it is in the national interest to join sooner rather than later?
    Ms Hewitt: The Government's position on joining the euro was set out in the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in October 1997. The central test must be whether joining a successful single currency is good for the British economy, good for British business, good for jobs and good for the City. As my right hon. Friend said in that statement, there is no realistic prospect of being able to make that judgment before the next election. However, we are ensuring that preparations are in hand, so that we can take a decision early in the new Parliament.
    If joining a successful single currency would be clearly and unambiguously good for this economy, of course, in principle, it must be right to join, but the economic tests must be met. Extraordinarily, the Conservative party takes the view that, even if joining the single currency were good for British business and good for jobs, it would still oppose joining.

    Harmful Tax Competition
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the harmful tax measures referred by the UK Government to the code of conduct working group on harmful tax competition. [66521]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): As I said in my answer of 17 December 1998 to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), the measures from the UK are international headquarters companies, special tax measures for the film industry, enterprise zones, 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances for small and medium enterprises in Northern Ireland, and roll-over relief for balancing charges arising on the disposal of shipping.
    That does not imply that the measures are actually harmful under the code. Discussions on these and other measures are proceeding. International holding companies are due to be abolished this April, following decisions made earlier by the Government. The Government are confident that the other four measures are not actually harmful within the meaning of the code, and are robustly making the case.
    Mr. Loughton: Can the hon. Lady tell us the details contained in the measures on her list with regard to the British shipping industry, British enterprise zones and the British film industry? When will she publish in full the details of the measures on the list? Will she give the House a guarantee that before she signs away any of the House's competence on tax matters to be decided here behind closed doors, she will have the courtesy first to debate those measures with hon. Members?
    Dawn Primarolo: The measures have already been published in a written answer on 17 December 1998, and I have repeated verbally today the measures listed in the UK's name. With regard to my right to sign away anything on behalf of the Government, I do not have such a right. I am subject to scrutiny in these matters, and I am sure that the House will ensure that that takes place.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: May I urge my hon. Friend to tackle tax competition where it is harmful to British interests? I draw to her attention the corporation tax regime in the Republic of Ireland, which offers a selective tax concession on new company profits where there is new inward investment. That is harmful tax competition which damages inward investment opportunities in the north-east of England and, I might add, in the north-east of Ireland.
    Dawn Primarolo: General rates of corporation tax are not included in the scope of the code. I can tell my hon. Friend that the code of conduct working group is looking at measures and their impact, and at whether they encourage artificially the location of investment, distorting the allocation of real investment. That deals with my hon. Friend's point. It is not only the European
    470
    Union that is examining these issues—the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the G7 are doing so too.
    Sir Michael Spicer: In that context, may we have an absolute assurance that the Government will veto all attempts to harmonise direct or indirect taxation?
    Dawn Primarolo: We will always protect the British national interest. We have repeatedly made that clear in the House.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that competition on corporation tax between nation states in euroland is a good thing, as it brings about a more competitive average rate in Europe to attract inward investment? Will she fight to ensure that competition on corporation tax in Europe continues?
    Dawn Primarolo: The simple answer is yes. The priorities for the European Union must be employment and competitive markets. That is what we should be taking forward.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Minister accept that the entire exercise is extremely dangerous? Unfair tax competition is simply another term for low taxes enjoyed by this country, which give us an advantage in the European and global market. Some of the measures to which the hon. Lady referred were passed in the Government's first Finance Bill, yet their measures are already under scrutiny in the secret group that she chairs. That shows that what the Government do in one Finance Bill they have to unravel in another. Will she ensure that she keeps the House fully informed about the measures, and will she announce today that she will adopt a policy of vetoing wherever possible any undermining of our tax advantage, which was built up over many years by this Government—by this party?
    Dawn Primarolo: That was nearly a compliment for the Government, and congratulation on our economic strategy.
    I say to the right hon. Gentleman again that general rates of corporation tax are not included in considerations within that particular group. I also remind him that the previous Government signed a resolution at the ECOFIN Council of November 1992, when they said that
    "consideration is urgently needed of possible remedies to"
    the problems of unfair tax competition. That is precisely what is happening, and the right hon. Gentleman should not look for conspiracies everywhere, although I understand that there are a few going on in his party at the moment.

    Inheritance Tax
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What assessment he has made of the effects of reducing inheritance tax in return for concessions. [66522]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The conditional exemption scheme assists in the protection and preservation of assets of appropriate heritage quality and secures reasonable public access to them.
    Mr. Bennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new post, and also note that we have an increasing number of women in the Treasury team, which is a big contrast to the Conservative party.
    Will my hon. Friend bring her traditional vigour to the question of the concessions that have been given for access to land, because that has been one of the great rip-offs? People have offered access to land, on a very limited number of occasions, in return for reductions in inheritance tax. That was looked at again during consideration of the previous Finance Bill, and new provisions were put in. How many new negotiations have taken place under the new provisions, and does she agree that it would be better to get rid of those concessions and simply have a right of access to all mountain and moorland, for all the public?
    Mrs. Roche: I know of the great interest that my hon. Friend has taken in that issue for a long time. He is right to say that the conditional exemption scheme rules were strengthened by the previous Finance Bill. Detailed rules are being drawn up at the moment, because the assets have to be listed so that the public can get information about them. It is absolutely right to strike a balance between maintaining and preserving our heritage in terms of land and buildings and making absolutely sure that the public—who pay for the tax referral—gain advantage for that.
    My hon. Friend rightly pointed out the problems that the Opposition face. I thank him for his warm welcome to my new post, and I note that there is not one woman Conservative Member of Parliament in the Chamber.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride rose—
    Mrs. Roche: Apart from the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I know how excited Conservative Members are about inheritance tax, but they should not get so excited that they forget that the hon. Lady, whom I warmly welcome, has been present for only the last two minutes of Question Time. It is hardly surprising, given the lack of
    472
    representation of women, that the Conservative party's internal polling shows that it is widely out of touch with the British people.

    Public Services
    Ms Joan Ryan: If he will make a statement about the overall level of public spending on the major public services for the next three years. [66523]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): Over the next three years the Government will spend an extra £40 billion on modernising the United Kingdom's health services and on raising standards in education.
    The spending increases on our key priorities are in the context of prudent expenditure plans overall. Spending is now linked to achievement of clear objectives and targets, as set out in the public service agreements for each Department.
    Ms Ryan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. My constituents warmly welcome the extra money that the Government have put into our vital public services. That means that, because my constituents are under Enfield and Haringey health authority, we have had an extra £3 million to deal with waiting lists. Our waiting lists will be down by 3,000 by March. The extra £2 million of winter pressures money, which is a new development introduced by this Government, has meant that, over the past two winters, our accident and emergency departments have coped well and have not had to close their doors at any point.
    Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that he will pay absolutely no heed—no heed at all—to the Conservative party's proposals, which would cut public funding, damage my constituents and damage the people of Britain?
    Mr. Milburn: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. Her constituents are now seeing the benefit of this Government's prudent management of public finances, and extra investment will be made from April this year. The question that they are all asking is "What on earth would happen to the health service and our schools if, heaven help us, the Conservative party ever returned to power?"

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill.
TUESDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill.
WEDNESDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the Government's record on pensions, followed by a debate on planning and the green belt. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Police Grant report (England and Wales).
Motions on the English Revenue Support Grant Reports.
FRIDAY 5 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until about 7 o'clock, consideration in Committee of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Water Industry Bill.
THURSDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Until 4 o'clock, motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant reports.
Motions on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order and the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
Motions on the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions (Finance) Order and the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Appropriations) Order.
FRIDAY 12 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
Hon. Members may have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce that he will make his Budget statement on Tuesday 9 March. I can also announce that a Committee of the House will scrutinise the draft Food Standards Bill which was published yesterday, along the lines set out in the Modernisation Committee's first report in the last Session. A Committee will be specially established for the purpose. It has been proposed that it will be established next week, and asked to report by the end of March.
As I have said on other occasions, I did not think that it would be possible in the current Session fully to meet the recommendation of the Modernisation Committee's report on the parliamentary calendar that there should be
474
a non-sitting or constituency week in mid-February; but, in an endeavour to meet the spirit of the recommendation, it will be proposed—subject to the progress of business, and to agreement through the usual channels—that the House should adjourn at the end of business on Tuesday 16 February, until Monday 22 February.
Sir George Young: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us next week's business and an indication of business in the following week, and for her other announcements.
Can we be assured that the House will have an opportunity to debate Kosovo next week if the issue of NATO military action arises? Can the right hon. Lady tell us when the Government will announce their decisions on the pay review board's recommendations? Can she ensure that next week we shall have answers from the Chancellor to questions about arrangements for his travel to and in the far east—questions answered by every other Cabinet Minister but which the Chancellor has unreasonably refused to answer?
Finally, may we have a debate on the constitutional propriety of members of a Select Committee seeking to hold Ministers to account, while at the same time engaging in collaborative discussions with those very Ministers?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman a debate next week on Kosovo, but I can assure him that the Government keep under review issues of such importance as Kosovo. I will bear his observations in mind. He asked me when we expect to announce the results of the pay review bodies. They will be announced in due course and in the normal way. He also asked me about answers from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My understanding is that the Chancellor has answered questions on matters that have been put to him in line with normal rules of ministerial accountability.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about the propriety of engaging in debate and relationships within Select Committees in varying circumstances. I think that all hon. Members always engage with propriety in their discussions and there are, of course, many forums in which those discussions take place.
Mr. John McWilliam: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to speak to the Foreign Secretary about the serious situation that is developing in Gibraltar following the arrests of fishermen with their well named trawler La Pirana; the blockade threatened by Spanish fishermen on the Gibraltar land border; and the statement, apparently by the Spanish Foreign Secretary, that he regards Gibraltar and its people as economic parasites? Will we have an opportunity to debate that next week if the situation worsens?
Mrs. Beckett: I must concede that I was not aware of the detail of the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend. Obviously, we always try to preserve good relations with all our allies and in all circumstances, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will take heed of my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for her announcement about the constituency days, if not a constituency week. I am sure that that will be welcome.

475
I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 162.
[That this House welcomes the competition provided by mutual organisations in the financial services sector as demonstrated by three independent end of year surveys which show that building societies provide cheaper mortgages and better performing TESSAs; believes that choice and diversity in the financial services sector is in the best interests of consumers; welcomes the resolve of the board of the Bradford and Bingley Building Society to remain a mutual as being in the best long term interest of its members; strongly supports the six other building societies that have each received a board nomination and an identical conversion resolution from a pro-conversion candidate who has failed to be elected to the Nationwide Building Society for two years in a row; and, recognising that building societies' mutual status can continue to be challenged in this way every year, calls for a review of the regulatory framework to end the unnecessary disruption that this causes and ensure a level playing field with their competitors in the financial services sector.]
Will she be able to find time for a ministerial statement next week, or the week after, in which the Government will announce the measures that they will introduce to stop the annual round of wrecking motions by predators on mutual building societies? That move would be widely welcomed in the House and protect the mutual building society sector.
Mrs. Beckett: I have some sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. We recognise the diversity and competition that building societies bring to the savings and loans markets. The future of those societies, of course, remains in the hands of their boards and members. A change can be made only with their agreement. However, I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate on the matter in the near future.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Taking into account your strictures of last week, Madam Speaker, that, in asking for debates during this Question Time, our requests should relate to the following week's business—
Madam Speaker: Order. Members may question the business statement. The Leader of the House has given the business for more than one week. They may question the statement that she has made.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wonder, then, whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might consider allowing for a debate some time in the next two weeks on how it was that the National Westminster bank induced its innocent customers to invest in what the bank knew to be a duff and failing business, and how it deliberately and carefully refused to reveal that information to its innocent customers? Has she seen the press release that has been put out by National Westminster bank, in which it rebuts my allegation, which I know to be true, that Mr. Peter Stern was directly involved in that subterfuge?
Mrs. Beckett: I have not seen the press release to which my hon. Friend refers. I detect that the entire House feels a growing sympathy for his call for a debate. However, I am not able to grant it within the two-week time scale.
Mr. Peter Brooke: In asking the question, I declare an unremunerated interest as the president of the British Art Market Federation. Now that we are within a month of the relevant Council of Ministers meeting on droit de suite, will the Leader of the House contemplate allowing a debate in the next fortnight on both droit de suite and the related subject of value added tax on works of art that are imported to the European Union?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot undertake at this moment to give the right hon. Gentleman the debate that he seeks. I recognise that this is an important and controversial issue and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a full-day debate over the next two weeks on the order that will transfer the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales to the Welsh Assembly? She will be aware that the transfer is very important, because it could define the relationship between the Assembly and this House, between the Secretary of State for Wales and the Assembly and between the Assembly and Europe. The relevant provisions for Scotland were contained in a schedule to the Scotland Act 1998, but the details of the transfer of powers for Wales have never been debated.
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the draft transfer order is subject to affirmative procedure in both Houses, so there will be an opportunity to debate it. The time and length of that debate is normally a matter for the usual channels. I understand the strength of my right hon. Friend's case. I fear that I cannot undertake at the moment to give him a whole day for a debate, but I shall bear his views in mind.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: During Treasury Question Time earlier today, I asked about the European Union withholding tax. The Government are involved in discussions with the EU about the future of the tax, which could have important implications for the City and others. Will she bear in mind that it would be highly desirable for that complex matter to be fully debated in the House during the next two weeks?
Mrs. Beckett: As the right hon. Gentleman said, he has just had an opportunity to raise the issue at Treasury questions. I recognise that discussions are continuing and have some sympathy with his wish to air the matter further. However, I cannot undertake to give him time in the next two weeks.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that we have a full three hours for the debate on the revenue support grant settlement for England on Thursday of next week? Will she seek to discourage those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who merely wish to congratulate the Government from participating in the debate, so that those of us who have serious concerns about the settlement are able to speak?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's call for a sufficiently long debate. That is a matter for arrangements through the usual channels, but we shall do our utmost to

477
satisfy him. Who is called to speak in the debate is a matter for the Speaker and I would not dream of trespassing on that responsibility.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does the right hon. Lady recall being asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) during the debate on the modernisation proposals on 16 December last year
"whether she is satisfied that the opportunity for Back Benchers to hold the Executive to account will not be reduced as a result of the proposals"?—[Official Report, 16 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 989.]
She answered, "Absolutely and categorically." Is she aware that on Tuesday the Greater London Authority Bill Standing Committee chose not to meet until 2.30 pm today, rather than at 9 am?
The right hon. Lady gave us the distinct impression that Standing Committees would meet at 9 am when assuring us that there would be no reduction in the hours available to Back Benchers to hold the Government to account. Can we have an urgent debate on the effects already being shown by the modernisation proposals in dramatically reducing the opportunities for the House to hold the Government to account? The arrangements may satisfy the Leader of the House and her fellow Ministers, but they sure as hell do not satisfy me.
Mrs. Beckett: This is all so much nonsense. The hours that a Committee chooses to meet are a matter for the Committee. They always have been and it is very likely that they always will be. There is nothing to prevent Committees from meeting at 9 am should they choose to do so. It is not part of my job to criticise them for when they choose to sit.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the Scottish business that my right hon. Friend announced, could we have a cost estimate of the weekly wages paid out to contractors for all the joiners hacking away at the headquarters of the Church of Scotland up The Mound, preparing for a transitional Scottish Parliament? In the next two weeks, could there also be time for a debate on whether bombing—be it of Iraq, the El Shifa factory in Sudan or, heaven help us, Serbia—is counter-productive? Is she aware that a serious Slovak delegation is visiting London and that yesterday morning they conveyed to those of us who had discussions with them the idea that a bombing attack on Serbia would enrage not only the Serbs, but all the Slavs—and that we had better be extremely careful?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that the costs of the Scottish Parliament are not a matter for me, nor can I find time for debate on them in the near future. With regard to my hon. Friend's question about the implications and aftermath of decisions to undertake military action such as bombing, such decisions are always difficult and cause problems as well as help to solve them. None of us has a monopoly of wisdom on how such matters are handled and I cannot find time for a debate on them next week.
Mr. John Bercow: May we have a statement next week from the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for North Swindon
478
(Mr. Wills), on the filing of accounts and the submission of annual returns? Is the Leader of the House aware that I raise the matter because at Trade and Industry questions last week the hon. Gentleman said that every company with which he had been associated had always complied with the requirements of Companies House? Is she further aware that research has since shown that in three years—1987, 1988 and 1989—returns were filed respectively 11, 15 and 13 months late? In the light of the apparent conflict between the hon. Gentleman's answer last week and the evidence that has since emerged, does she agree that, for his good name and that of the Government, an urgent statement is required?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I certainly cannot find time for a debate on the matter and I doubt whether my hon. Friend is likely to be called to make a statement on it. I am not familiar with the facts that the hon. Gentleman relates, but we are all aware that businesses, particularly small businesses, sometimes have difficulties and overlook complying with certain deadlines. Indeed, it is within my memory that when the hon. Gentleman was employed by the Conservative party, the Conservative party itself was in breach of many such undertakings.
Mr. Harry Cohen: My right hon. Friend referred to the forthcoming debate on the Employment Relations Bill, which contains provisions for leave for family reasons. That is an important advance that my hon. Friends will welcome. However, the fact that it is unpaid leave will make it difficult for many low-paid workers to take up. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government consider the matter and that Ministers come to the debate with proposals or arrangements for payment or tax credit so that low-paid workers can take up their right?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's views on the matter and I am glad that he welcomes the Government's proposals. He is right that it is an important advance and a fresh step to extend rights to parental leave and in particular to create a right to protection against dismissal or detriment for claiming parental leave. However, at present the Government are unable to propose that such parental leave should be paid. Although of course I shall draw my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I very much doubt that they will feel able to grant his request.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the Leader of the House aware that last Sunday 22,000 people attended a rally and march in my constituency of Gosport to protest against the proposed closure of the Royal hospital, Haslar, the only remaining military hospital? Is she aware that there is the most profound concern in Gosport, Fareham and surrounding areas that there will be a loss of accident and emergency cover and other medical facilities and that lives will be lost? In view of that profound concern, will she find time for a debate on the subject, as it really cannot be allowed to escape parliamentary scrutiny?
Mrs. Beckett: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has, perfectly properly, taken several opportunities to raise that matter, and I am sure that he will continue to do so. In that sense, it could not be said that it is escaping parliamentary scrutiny. It is a matter for discussion between my right

479
hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health, and I am confident that those discussions are taking place.
Siobhain McDonagh: Could my right hon. Friend find time in the next fortnight for a debate on the privatised utilities? As I am sure she is aware, there is now one regulator for both gas and electricity, but owing to the heavy legislative programme there will not be time for a new utilities Bill this Session. She may also be aware that I had the chance to raise the matter in the House yesterday during a debate on how some of my elderly constituents were being treated by London Electricity.
Despite condemnation by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry, London Electricity continues not to provide those elderly people with connections for their storage heaters. I imagine that many hon. Members face difficulties with the company, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could consider a debate on present and future frameworks for controlling privatised utilities.
Mrs. Beckett: I have heard of my hon. Friend's strong campaign on behalf of her constituents and I know that London Electricity says that it is now trying to resolve the situation. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on that general matter in the near future, but I have little doubt that, with the ingenuity that she has shown so far, she will succeed in raising it as the opportunity arises.
Mr. John Hayes: Bearing in mind the publication of the recent consultation on draft legislation on the Food Standards Agency and, more controversially, the proposals to fund it by a levy, will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on the subject, so that the Special Select Committee that has been set up can be properly informed of the wider views of Members, who will no doubt reflect the serious concerns of every corner shop and village shop in the country, which will be faced with the extra charges?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong, but I feel confident that he is acting mistakenly and not from malice. There is no reason why every corner shop in the land should be concerned about the levy, because it will not affect every corner shop in the land. Even for those that are affected, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the levy amounts to only £1.73 per premises per week; but it will not in any event apply to retail premises selling some wrapped food, for example, or indeed to food premises that are already exempt from registration and will continue to be so.
It is the intention that the proposals will be discussed with representatives of small business. The special Committee, which I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes, will allow the measures to be scrutinised, and I do not see the need at present to provide further opportunity for a debate.
Ms Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate in the next fortnight on the import of illegal guns via the internet? She may not be aware that five stun guns were recently imported in that way and found in Bedfordshire; one has still not been discovered, posing a serious danger to my
480
constituents. Given the growth of internet sales, will she find time to ensure that we have protection against the import of such illegal and dangerous armaments?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not familiar with that case, but my hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I fear that I cannot find time for a debate, but I will certainly undertake to draw her observations to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Leader of the House, as a matter of courtesy to the House, examine column 302 of the Hansard report of 27 January 1999, where the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food invites me to see the answer to my parliamentary question on the internet, at a very long and protracted address? For those of us for whom the internet is an unfathomable and obscure instrument, will the right hon. Lady consult the Clerks in the various Departments, as it would be better practice for Parliament that these answers should be fully recorded in Hansard? Those of us who struggle to operate a typewriter, let alone the internet, would rather see them set out correctly in the record.
Mrs. Beckett: I do sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I concede that I deplored it when, under the previous Administration, agencies began to reply in ways that did not appear in Hansard, after which attempts were made to ensure that the information was fully available. I am not familiar with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I undertake to look at it.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 227?
[That this House notes the remarks made by the Indonesian Defence Attaché, Colonel Halim Nawi on the Mark Thomas Show (Channel 4, 20th January) that British made military equipment, including Saladin and Saracen armoured vehicles, are currently being used in East Timor; and calls on the British Government to stop immediately all military exports to Indonesia until there has been a full investigation into the matter.]
In that programme, Colonel Halim Nawi openly acknowledged the use of UK military equipment in East Timor. Would it be possible to find time for the House to debate the question of whether we ought to suspend all arms shipments to Indonesia until this matter has been fully investigated, given that that assertion had previously been denied by the Indonesians?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. We are quite confident that no equipment licensed for export to Indonesia by this Government has been used for repression in East Timor. All such licences are looked at carefully, particularly when there is an identifiable risk that the equipment might be used for internal repression or aggression. I am not familiar with the remarks to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the relevant Departments.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Leader of the House reassure hon. Members that the absence of a single service day in the business announced for the next two weeks does not represent in any sense

481
a diminution of the Government's commitment to those important parliamentary occasions? In that connection, could we have an early debate on the Royal Navy, since Her Majesty's ships are poised in the Adriatic and the Gulf at a particularly critical time for international relations in both those theatres? Such a debate would give right hon. and hon. Members an early opportunity to express their admiration of the late Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Lewin—an admiration that was recorded in early day motion 253.
[That this House expresses its appreciation for the life and service of Admiral of the Fleet the late Lord Lewin who by his example of outstanding devotion to duty in peace and war maintained the highest traditions of the Royal Navy and through his wise counsel and operational experience contributed so much to the liberation of the Falkland Islands in 1982.]
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was only in the autumn that we held some of the service debates, and there is no suggestion whatever that the Government are in any way wishing to dispose of them. The fact that they are not taking place in the next couple of weeks merely reflects the pressure of business. Equally—and with the deepest respect for the late Lord Lewin and his contribution to this nation—I doubt whether Lord Lewin would have thought that the House should spend more time commemorating his passing than debating the future of the armed forces.
Mr. Ian Bruce: May we have an urgent debate on the subject of blind trusts, as I am sure that the Prime Minister is keen to clear the air following the unfortunate resignations of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson)? The Chancellor has agreed that the blind trust that funded his parliamentary office before the general election was funded by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, as was the home of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool.
We know from the Labour party's accounts that no money was given to the Labour party directly by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, but a large number of people who are now Cabinet Ministers—including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House—had blind trusts. We would like to know, as would the country, what has gone on. The air could be cleared in a debate, and there could be full disclosure of the people who gave money to blind trusts to ensure that the Government came to power.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, and the hon. Gentleman has shown clearly why such a debate would be completely unnecessary. The matters are under consideration by the proper House authorities. I am sure that he is aware—and I hope that he intended no implication otherwise—that all such arrangements, when they were set up, were cleared with the House authorities in the proper manner.
At that time, it was the strong advice of the House authorities and others to handle such matters in that way. That advice may be changing, and I am sure that everyone involved will take account of that. However, I note
482
with some surprise that the Conservative party had recommended to the House authorities that blind trusts were the proper way to pursue such funding—so I really do not know why we should have a debate on the matter.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On Saturday, large numbers of Britain's pig farmers descended on London to illustrate the crisis facing the industry. The problem is not that they have a poor product but that they cannot compete with imports from countries where cheaper foods are fed to pigs. Such foods are banned here. Moreover, husbandry techniques are allowed in those countries that would never be allowed in Britain now. The crisis is real and immediate: will the Leader of the House allow a debate on it?
Mrs. Beckett: I think that we are all very conscious of the difficulties faced by the pig industry. We have taken what action we can to help it through what I accept is a difficult period. I fear that I cannot promise a debate next week, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I always do my best to buy British bacon.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Following the right hon. Lady's frankly callous and insensitive response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) about the Government's proposals to impose a flat tax of £90 on all food shops in the country, will she reconsider whether the whole House should discuss the proposals? The shopkeepers in Bromsgrove find it completely unacceptable that they should have to pay the same amount as the out-of-town supermarkets, which have considerably more customers and make considerably greater profits.
We in Bromsgrove are very lucky in that many of our local communities—such as Rubery, Wythall, Hagley, Alvchurch, Aston Fields and others—have excellent local food shops where pensioners like to shop and which are the hub of their local areas. Those shops are already under severe pressure because of business rates and the competition from out-of-town shopping centres, and they regard the Government's proposals as disgraceful.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry if the hon. Lady feels that I have somehow hurt her feelings or those of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). Frankly, what she said was just plain silly. How can it be callous to set out the facts? Many small shops will not have anything to pay. In some cases, and for a variety of good reasons, even small shops that sell certain foods will be exempt. Such matters can be examined, and that is the purpose of the consultation. I hope that no Conservative Member will do anything to spread alarm and despondency among people who will not have to pay the charge.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging a debate in the next fortnight to consider the operation of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was passed last summer? That Act was thought to be sufficiently important for the House of Commons to be recalled in the recess, at considerable expense to the taxpayer. It was designed to ensure that people who use this country as a base to conspire to commit terrorist offences abroad could be brought to book. As far as I am aware, so far there has not been a single prosecution under that Act.

483
Friendly countries abroad must resent what they believe to be the use of this country as a place to plan conspiracies against them, and they will find it difficult to understand that, although Parliament underwent an emergency recall to pass the legislation, nothing has happened as a result. Should there not be a debate to examine that matter, which I think would be of interest to both sides of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: It is a little unusual to be asked to provide time for a debate because nothing has happened. Any credible information or intelligence that is received on the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is fully investigated, and action would certainly be taken were any relevant evidence uncovered. However, I fear that I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the matter in the near future.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Leader of the House announced that the Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill would take place on 9 February. Will she find time before then for a debate that would set the Bill, which will impose yet further burdens on British business, in context? During the past few days there have been reports that 90 per cent. of British businesses would not consider starting up now if they faced the weight of legislative and regulatory burdens placed on them by the Government. The burdens on business have already increased by more than £5 billion since 1 May 1997.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate in which the Conservative party could pursue the allegations it made throughout the general election, and with which it was so patently unsuccessful in frightening British business.

Point of Order
1.6 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you say a word about the question put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) about his being referred to a parliamentary answer on the internet? While I suspect that the relevant information might also have been made available in the Library, is it not also the case that the Library can secure information for a Member from the internet if a parliamentary answer refers to it?
The positive benefit of using the internet is that, for the first time, answers can be made available nation wide to any member of the public not only throughout the United Kingdom but across the world. The parliamentary answer given to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is historically significant in beginning a process of opening up the House of Commons. I recognise that the Library has an important function for us, but the answer opens out information in a way that many of us would wish to welcome.
Madam Speaker: It is of course good to put answers to questions on the internet so that they may be available to a much wider audience. However, I take the view that answers should be printed in Hansard for us all to see. By all means, put information on the internet, but when a Member asks a question, I like to see the answer in Hansard.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The relevant question asks for the publication of
"proceedings of his"
that is, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's—
"recent conference on the future of agriculture"—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 302.]
It may be that the proceedings in question would have consumed the whole of Hansard. It may therefore have been totally impractical to place all the proceedings in Hansard.
Madam Speaker: We do not know if that is so, and it would have been helpful if the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had let us know whether the answer would have consumed the whole of Hansard. I need no argument about this matter on the Floor of the House: I want answers to be printed in Hansard. By all means let us publish to a wider reading audience through the internet, in addition to Hansard.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security
  1.8 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.
  The House is being asked to consider a fourth order in addition to the uprating orders because an error in the main order shows the amount of benefit for widowers pension in industrial injuries benefits as £66.25, whereas the actual uprated amount is £66.75. The error will not affect the actual benefit paid. I apologise to the House, which I hope will approve the amended order. I am grateful to the Opposition who have, as far as I know, not objected to the late tabling of the fourth order.
  I want to deal with the orders in four parts. First, I want to place them in the context of overall spending on social security, because the question of whether they are affordable will arise. Secondly, I shall deal with the uprating orders themselves. In general, most insurance benefits will increase in line with the retail prices index, at 3.2 per cent. Means-tested benefits will generally increase by 2.1 per cent., in the normal way. That is providing £3.7 billion of extra help for millions of people, including 1.5 million pensioners, and 6.5 million families with children.
  Thirdly, I want to deal with the pensions uprating. Finally, I shall set out how we are improving the system for getting benefits to disabled people and people of working age.
  The orders are affordable. They are part of our strategy to ensure work for those who can and to provide security for those who cannot. Our objective is to build an affordable social security system that meets the needs of the next 50 years, not those of post-war Britain, and that provides active help to get people into work and off benefit, and not only cash benefits.
  We are doing this while maintaining prudent levels of public spending and tighter controls. Increasingly, we ask for more evidence before we pay awards and we are changing the culture of Benefits Agency staff, asking them to engage in active case management to ensure that benefits are right from the start and kept right throughout the duration of their payment.
  We inherited a system characterised by spiralling costs and sometimes slack controls. Between 1979 and 1987, the Conservative Government spent no less than £43 billion more on social security while inequality, poverty and social exclusion increased dramatically. They were spending to treat the symptoms of failure, not its causes.
  We inherited a situation where one in three children live in poverty, which is why we are introducing today a record increase in child benefit. One in five households of working age have no one in work, which is why we introduced the new deal. One in three people of working age risk retiring on means-tested benefit, and that is unacceptable. That is the reason for our pension reform, which I announced last December.
  Mr. Frank Field: Most of us agree with my right hon. Friend that it is appalling that one in three
  486
  pensioners retire on to means-tested assistance, but will he confirm that, if his pensions reforms are implemented, 50 years hence, the proportion will fall only to one in four?
  Mr. Darling: I read in some detail my right hon. Friend's article in Pensions Week, which has retained him as a pensions expert. We will debate pensions next week, when I will go far more into that subject. As he knows better than many in the House, predicting what will happen over the next 50 years involves many variables. The reforms that I announced last December will mean that far fewer people than at present will depend on means-tested benefits when they retire. My objective is to ensure that, as a matter of policy, if people work for their whole lives, they should be able to accrue a sufficient pension to retire on an income above the means-tested benefit. I know that he has particular difficulties with my proposals, just as I have with his. There is an honest difference of opinion, which will no doubt be explored at great length. I would have hoped that he would have supported our objective, which must be to reward work so that people retire with a pension above means-tested benefits.
  Mr. Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: Only once more, as the orders primarily deal with general social security benefit.
  Mr. Field: My right hon. Friend said that we should reward people who have worked for the whole of their lives. No one disagrees with that. Why, then, are the capital limits not being increased by the orders?
  Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend has no doubt read the pensions Green Paper and knows that it explicitly states that we want to examine the capital and income limits on pensions. All hon. Members will agree that, above any other source of complaints, pensioners tell us that they have saved all their lives but are penalised for it while people without savings who have perhaps spent all their money are not. I want to stop that, which is why, both in the Green Paper and in exchanges on the Floor, I made it clear that the Government want to consider the matter. That reform is long overdue and I hope that he will support it. I repeat that the Government's strategy is to have a pensions policy designed to get people off means-tested benefits as far as possible. Of course, we must look after the poorest pensioners, who, through no fault of their own, may end up without enough money to retire.
  We are controlling social security spending because we are determined to get people back into work. Our manifesto promised that we would cut the bills of economic and social failure. We have several schemes and measures, some before the House today, that will encourage people to get back into work. The single gateway, about which I will have more to say soon, will improve matters further.
  Department of Social Security spending will grow by less than 2 per cent. during this Parliament, compared to 4 per cent. during the previous Parliament. That includes our investment in the working families tax credit. In the first year of the previous Parliament—under the previous Government—spending on social security rose by a

  487
  staggering 10 per cent. We have been able to control that spending. Unemployment has gone down—there are 400,000 more jobs in the economy than there were at the election—and unemployment has dropped by some 300,000. Moreover, because of our wider economic policies—the new economic stability, the new deals and making work pay—we are ensuring that we create the sort of economy that will encourage job development.
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has repeatedly told the House, our objective is to achieve a new stability in a very unstable world, because we want people to invest in Britain and firmly believe that the best form of welfare is to get people into work. We must end a situation where people are almost consigned to a life on benefit dependency, as so many were during the 1980s. One sometimes thought that it was almost a matter of policy.
  The new deal to get young and long-term unemployed people into work is making a significant contribution. Some 50 per cent. of those who leave the new deal find paid jobs. We have also invested £195 million in the new deal for disabled people, because the Government have a clear commitment to do far more than we have in the past to help disabled people, especially those who want to get into work.
  Providing access to quality, affordable child care, with the first-ever national child care strategy, is an important part of that approach. So, too, is making work pay, with the introduction of the national minimum wage in April, and wider tax and benefit reforms. From April, nearly 2 million people will gain from the first national minimum wage—two thirds of them women on low wages.
  From October, the new working families tax credit will guarantee low-paid families with a full-time worker a minimum income of £10,000 a year. It remains a surprise to the Government why the Tory party is committed to getting rid of the working families tax credit, which would mean a tax increase of some £17 a week for the poorest families. The disabled person's tax credit will provide a guaranteed minimum income of at least £150 a week for a single disabled person who moves from benefit to full-time work.
  Before the House is an extremely important order, which cuts taxes for all employees who pay national insurance. It is worth nearly £70 a year to 20 million people. We are reducing the national insurance burden for employers, which is of particular importance. From April, employers will not pay contributions on the first £83 of their employees' weekly earnings—up from the current threshold of £64. That is a great help to employers, as is a further step that we are taking: we are simplifying national insurance for employers by replacing the current four rates for contributions with a single, unified rate of 12.2 per cent. for all earnings above the £83 a week earnings threshold.
  We are also helping people with long-term illnesses and disabilities to get back to work by increasing the amount that people on incapacity benefit can earn from therapeutic work by a full £10 a week, rising to £58 a week.
  All those measures are designed to make work pay, because we are determined to end the previous Government's poverty of opportunity, and end abuse of the system. We inherited a system that is, in many cases,
  488
  wide open to fraud and error. We are taking action to root out benefit fraud and reduce error. We set up the benefit fraud inspectorate, and introduced a wider range of penalties to punish fraud. This week, I announced that we are stopping the Post Office sending housing benefit cheques to bogus addresses. When we trialled the procedure a short while ago, more than £200,000 was saved in just a month in two London boroughs.
  We recently made £100 million available to help local authorities check the accuracy of housing benefit claims. The House is well aware that far too many mistakes—some error, some fraud—are made in housing benefit. However, it is clear that an effective fraud strategy must rid the system of two major flaws that we inherited: first, the system tempts councils to inflate the amount that they detect; and, secondly, it rewards detection and not prevention. The prevention of fraud is far more important that the previous Government thought. Detection is important, but prevention and being tough on the causes of fraud are just as important as dealing with its consequences.
  It is worth noting that the National Audit Office report was very critical of the system that we inherited from the Tories, stating that the results suggested that, at best, there were high levels of error when claiming weekly benefit savings and, at worst, sharp practice by local authority staff. It did not surprise me when, a couple of weeks ago, one or two councils complained about our change of approach and that those councils were supported by the Conservative party. They must face the fact that the weekly benefit savings focuses attention on catching fraud once it has happened, and that sometimes that fraud is manufactured; it does not concentrate on preventing fraud in the first place.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman makes much of the changes. Does he not accept that it would be possible to enhance the detection of fraud once it has happened as well as preventing fraud? He seems to think that there is a gain in trading off one for the other. Surely, the point made in the newspaper articles is that he is putting at risk a saving of up to £200 million, but offering no targets for the amount that he will push off by getting rid of people's ideas about defrauding the system.
  Mr. Darling: No, I am not saying that. As I have just said, I hope to set out soon our response to the Green Paper on fraud published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) when he was Minister for Welfare Reform. We have finished our consultations on the document and shall publish our response shortly.
  Targets are important, but it is even more important to have the right targets. I agree with the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that detection is very important. We set up the benefit fraud inspectorate, which is proving to be very successful, but we believe that, in the past, not enough attention has been paid to preventing fraud in the first place. The hon. Gentleman will know, as will anyone who has studied social security for even a short time, that the nature of some benefits—the lack of gateways and the evidence that is asked for—make it easy, in some cases, for mistakes to be made. Sometimes, there is genuine error—perhaps people do not get around to saying that their circumstances have changed—but that is not always the

  489
  case. There was a recent case in which a person was quite open about having used the slackness in the incapacity benefit system to defraud the social security system of substantial sums. We must close such gateways and ensure that we concentrate on prevention as well as detection. It is possible to do both and that is the best way to tackle the problems.
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green asked about targets. The Government have to review the targets and when we are able to make an announcement, I hope that he and everyone else will be satisfied that we have a sufficiently wide range of targets, which deliver the goods in prevention and detection. As I said, we are determined to take action across the board to ensure that our public spending plans are prudent and affordable and that we bear down on fraud and error in the system. That is a very important part of our strategy.
  The reason why we are controlling social security spending and ensuring that we have an affordable and manageable system is that we want to provide more money for pensioners, families with children and people with disabilities. I am committed to doing more for disabled people, as our proposals published last October made clear. From April 2001, we shall provide new help for the most severely disabled with the highest care needs through a new disability income guarantee, worth at least £128 a week for most single people and £169 a week for most couples. This year alone, through these orders, we shall spend £3.7 billion more, which includes a record increase in child benefit and more help for the poorest pensioners.
  Some 6.5 million families will be better off because of the biggest-ever increase in child benefit. From April, it will rise by nearly £3 to £14.40 a week for the eldest child. That is part of our strategy for dealing with the appalling level of poverty among children, which we inherited. We shall put extra resources into tackling the causes of poverty, including the sure start programme, which is designed to help young children get a good start in life and to end the pernicious circle whereby someone born poor will work poor and die poor, if we do not do something about it.
  We are also doing more for pensioners. The basic state pension will be increased to £66.75 a week for single people and £106.70 for couples. Our new pensioner minimum income guarantee will provide help for 1.5 million of the poorest pensioners. That will rise to at least £75 a week for single people and £116.60 for couples, which is nearly £5 a week extra for single pensioners and over £7 a week more for couples. As I said in reply to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, we are determined to alleviate the difficulties faced by people who have a modest amount of capital or income in retirement.
  Hon. Members must consider what else we are doing for pensioners. We have cut VAT on fuel and we have abolished the tax levy, which helps to reduce fuel costs. We are restoring free eye tests, which is appreciated by many pensioners. We are also helping with concessionary travel, which is also of great value, to help elderly people to get out and about.
  In short, we are providing security for today's pensioners. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, in two years we have done a great deal, especially to deal with
  490
  the plight of the poorest pensioners, but we fully accept that we want to do more in our overall strategy. We have announced our proposals for the long term. The royal commission on long-term care will report shortly and will no doubt make recommendations that the Government will want to study closely. We are as committed to helping today's elderly people as we are to ensuring that we plan for those in the future.
  Mr. Steve Webb: As the Secretary of State will know, I welcome extra money for poorer pensioners, but I object to the pretence that there is a guarantee. We are told that, from April, pensioners will have a minimum income guarantee, which is a major new reform. Will the Secretary of State tell me where in the uprating orders that guarantee is mentioned, because I understand them to relate only to income support?
  Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the minimum pension guarantee is not statutorily defined, but it is a guarantee for the poorest pensioners who qualify for it—
  Mr. Webb indicated dissent.
  Mr. Darling: Of course it is. The hon. Gentleman should be aware of that. I read the article in the Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago, of which I assume that he was the author, in which he alleged that pensioners are worse off under Labour if one takes into account various factors, including the abolition of tax relief for private medical insurance, which I am not sure many pensioners have; mortgage tax relief, although, by their very nature, pensioners tend no longer to have mortgages, and the higher fuel duty, although, as one gets older, one tends to drive less. He included also the higher tobacco duty, and, although I concede that some pensioners smoke, I am not sure that they all smoke like chimneys. The hon. Gentleman lumped in council tax for good measure, ignoring council tax benefit.
  By comparing and contrasting all those factors with our positive actions, which he acknowledged, on VAT on fuel and winter fuel payments and so on, he managed to work out that pensioners were £2 a year worse off.
  Most people know that the Government have much more to do, but our commitment to all poor people, particularly pensioners, cannot be in doubt. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) should consider the Green Paper on pensions—I am not sure what the Liberal Democrat position on that document is—which proposes massive help for people on low earnings who, at present, would retire on means-tested benefit. That should be supported. No doubt, we shall return to that matter in the debate next week.
  Mr. David Rendel: Is the Secretary of State saying—as I think I heard him say in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—that everybody who is eligible for the minimum income guarantee will receive it or just that they have a right to receive it? What estimate has he made of the number of those who are eligible for the minimum income guarantee who will not receive it because they will not claim it for one reason or another?
  Mr. Darling: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. That is a problem. He will know that the Government

  491
  have been considering how we can ensure that pensioners who are entitled to benefit receive it. Last year, we carried out pilot studies to find out what we can do. There are complex reasons why pensioners do not take up their full entitlement. Some feel a stigma in doing so because they were brought up in an age when the concept of means testing was completely different from what we understand now.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The means-testing is exactly the same.
  Mr. Darling: I cannot let that pass. The hon. Gentleman, who speaks from the Front Bench for the Conservatives, has been critical of means-testing, as he has in previous debates. I should point out that, during the 18 years that the Conservatives were in government, means-tested benefits grew from 16 per cent. to 34 per cent. of the total. Perhaps we shall return to the matter next week. For good measure, and in case he wants to reply, I remind him that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green wrote a book on the subject in 1993, in which he said that it would be undesirable to return to a system based on more collective social insurance. Their criticism is a little misplaced. I accept that, for those 18 years, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was, in effect, in opposition, too, so he may take a different line.
  I return to the more serious point made by the Liberals. We are concerned to ensure that we get benefits into the hands of pensioners who are entitled to them. Perhaps we may return to this in the debate on pensions next week. I am glad that the Opposition have given the Government a chance to set out at greater length what we are doing for pensioners. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) might be interested to know what we are doing to encourage pensioners to make telephone claims. We are running a scheme to make pensioners in north London aware of their entitlement. They are being taken through their forms by staff at a call centre in Newcastle. We are finding that the response rate and pensioners appreciation are far greater than one would have imagined. More people are used to telephones; they find them less threatening and more user-friendly. Our staff are well trained.
  I am determined to ensure that we move away from saying, "Yes, you have entitlement," but doing nothing about it. Where we provide an entitlement, we want people to take it up. To balance that, I am also determined to end the payment of benefits that should not be paid. The Liberals cannot have it both ways. We can do far more for those who need help provided that we ensure that gateways to the benefits system are tightened up, and we do not continue paying benefits when we have no need to do so. I know that Liberal Democrats do not accept the latter half of that approach, but I remind them that their penny on income tax has been stretched a great deal—even since the election.
  We are modernising the benefits system to ensure that people get the benefits to which they are entitled. We are introducing a fairer benefit review for disabled people who receive disability living allowance, and introducing a radical new service to help people of working age get back to work.
  I want to comment briefly on the national insurance recording system because hon. Members may ask whether the orders will affect it. The short answer is no.
  492
  The problems with the national insurance recording system—NIRS 2—have rightly attracted much attention this week. I have endeavoured to keep hon. Members informed. I wrote to them on 11 September, since when matters have clearly moved on. We have kept the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee fully informed, and I and my colleagues answered written questions on 4 November and 18 January. There are problems with the project; there is no getting away from that. We inherited the project from the previous Government. The contract was signed in 1995, and I am afraid that we have to clear up the mess that has been left behind.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Given the nature of the problems, the number of letters on the subject that many hon. Members are receiving and the concern about what is going on, of which the Secretary of State will know, will he commit himself and his Department to making a statement on the matter in the next few weeks?
  Mr. Darling: I must discuss the making of statements with colleagues. In the meantime, I undertake to write to hon. Members once I have gathered a little more information. I am very anxious to keep the House up to date. There is no doubt that many of our constituents will be concerned. They will have read newspaper reports on the subject, some of which are right and some of which are slightly off beam. There is clearly a problem.
  The computer system is the largest in Europe; it was, perhaps, inevitable that problems would occur. There is no doubt that, if we could start again today, procurement and contingency arrangements would be rather different. We must clear up the mess. As soon as I became aware of the scale of the problems when I was appointed in July, I decided that the priority was to try to fix the system and get it right. I am very happy to keep the House informed. Perhaps, in the first instance, it would be appropriate to write to all hon. Members or to answer a parliamentary question, but, if there were overwhelming demand for a statement, I would not stand in the way.
  We have done everything that we can to try to get the system operating properly. Significant progress has been made in the past few weeks, but undoubtedly it will be many months before the problem is completely resolved.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: May I make a simple suggestion? Perhaps, even if the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to make a statement at some point, he would consider, from his Department's point of view, informing those who are eligible for a pension who are confused about the matter—perhaps by advertising campaign, to explain what is going on and to reassure everyone that they will get restitution. The letters that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are receiving reveal deep concern, without any knowledge.
  Mr. Darling: I want to reflect on that. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be a major task to write to every pensioner, and unfortunately, in the development of that computer system, matters move on, sometimes fairly quickly—sometimes to our advantage, sometimes not. Any pensioner who has any doubts about how much they are getting may raise the matter with their local office.

  493
  We have taken great steps to ensure that we get the amount of pension as close to the right amount as possible. In most cases, the error will be not much more than a pound a week—sometimes a little more than that. If any pensioner is in hardship, there are provisions to meet that.
  I reassure the House that the Government are fully aware of what the problem is, that we are trying to sort the matter out, and that we are taking steps to ensure that, when we take future decisions on procurement, we apply what we have learnt from the problems that have arisen.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way, but then I shall move on, because I sense that the House would like me to conclude before the sun goes down.
  Mr. Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House how many pensioners have been affected by the breakdown in NIRS2? Will he say whether he is satisfied with the performance of Andersen Consulting—or would he rather not comment?
  Mr. Darling: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is extremely unwise to discuss contractual matters and possible litigation across the Floor of the Chamber. In answer to his first—better—question, about 180,000 pensioners are currently affected. That is far too many, but it is inevitable because of the failure of the computer system to operate on time.
  The previous Government entered into the contract. A year later, it was recognised that it would be problematic, but, unfortunately, the contingency plans that were developed were not foolproof. The current problems are being tackled, but I do not want hon. Members to be misled about this. Although the system is now starting to work satisfactorily, it will take some months to clear the backlog and to get things operating.
  I am determined that one of the things that I shall do while I am Secretary of State is ensure that we overhaul and replace our information technology systems. That is essential if we are to deliver a first-class service. However, in my experience, the procurement of a large computer system has much in common with the purchase of a laptop computer; very often, when one switches the computer on, astonishingly, nothing seems to happen. That problem seems to be endemic to the entire industry.
  Mr. Rendel rose—
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Darling: As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford did not know that it was the Tories who signed the contract, I give way to him.
  Mr. Davies: Indeed, I did know that the Tories signed the contract, but the fact is that the problems began a year ago and, for many months, the present Government, who have the responsibility, appear to have done nothing about it. The right hon. Gentleman has, correctly, taken a much
  494
  more measured and less defiant tone on the subject than he has in previous pronouncements, but will he take the opportunity to apologise to the House for having, last September, very rashly said that the whole problem would be resolved in two weeks?
  Mr. Darling: I may be wrong, but I am told that, when the hon. Gentleman went up to Newcastle, he managed to persuade Radio Newcastle to allow him into the studios. He seemed to be unaware at that time that it was his Government who had signed the contract. I am glad that he now accepts that.
  As for the past year, the Government were aware that there were problems with the system. The view that I took on becoming Secretary of State was that it was important for us to do everything possible to get the computer operating properly. There have been substantial problems, which have been narrated at length. As regards my tone throughout, it was I who took the decision to write to hon. Members. The information in that letter of 11 September was the best advice that I had at the time.
  Mr. Davies: Two weeks?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  Mr. Darling: Since then, a number of parliamentary questions have been answered. I caution the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that, if he proceeds much further down that line, there are many other things that could be said about the history of the contract. He was in opposition to his party, but his colleagues may not like it.
  Mr. Rendel rose—
  Mr. Darling: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall move on, as I want to say a word about the benefit integrity project. In my statement to the House on 28 October, I said that we had come to the view that the project was not working satisfactorily. I can announce that the benefit integrity project will end on 31 March.
  That will be replaced in April by a new system, which will ensure that people getting disability living allowance are receiving the benefit to which they are entitled. I am determined to see that the system will ensure that people get help if they need it, but I am equally determined to ensure that we end the situation that we inherited, where a third of the awards were being made in cases where there was no evidence to justify an award.
  I am writing to all hon. Members today with details of the new arrangements. I shall continue to hold discussions with disability groups, in particular the Disability Benefit Forum, which has been of immense help to the Government with their disability policy. I am grateful to all who have served on the forum.
  We want to ensure that our new system is sensitive, fair and effective. Our strategy to improve the benefit system includes the single gateway, with which I shall deal shortly. We want to bring about a radical change of culture in the Department. We want to ensure that benefits go to those who are entitled to them, and that the system

  495
  is robust. We want a radical service that will, for the first time, give everyone personalised work-focused advice delivered by his or her own personal adviser.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, then, for the benefit of everyone else, I intend to sit down shortly afterwards.
  Mr. Kirkwood: This is an important debate. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government's focus is to get people off benefit and into work. That has profound implications for the contributory principle in the national insurance scheme. I am afraid that the Government are making changes without looking at the context as a whole. The Select Committee on Social Security has agreed in principle to undertake a study of the matter. Will the Secretary of State make sure that Ministers and officials contribute to that debate, which may be to the benefit of the entire House?
  Mr. Darling: Certainly, the Department will do everything that it can to co-operate with the Select Committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am only too ready to co-operate with the Liberal party in discussing this or any other matter relating to my Department. He is right that an examination of those issues will be of immense importance in the next few years.
  It is worth reflecting on the fact that the contributory principle now accounts for just over 40 per cent. of the benefit system. The downward trend has occurred over the years, as I pointed out to the Conservatives earlier. There are problems. Those who advocate a return to the contributory system as it was ignore the fact that, with the lower earnings limit, for example, a number of low-paid people were excluded from it.
  Most of the contributory system for those of working age now pays for incapacity benefit. By no stretch of the imagination would that be the only thing that we would want to ensure against, if we were starting from scratch. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have considered those matters in the long term. The pensions proposals that I announced last December are heavily dependent on the contributory principle, because we believe that people should be rewarded for a lifetime's work.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that, through the new state second pension, we have done a great deal to reward work. Equally, we have increased child benefit, which is not a contributory benefit, but a universal benefit. We believe that it is important because it goes to children.
  I certainly accept that the issues relating to people of working age need to be looked at. There is a balance to be struck on these matters, and we want to help those people who need to be helped most, but anyone who believes that simply going back to the old contributory principle is our salvation has failed to take account of the fact that the labour market has moved on in the past 50 years. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and his Committee are looking at that issue, and I am more than happy to co-operate with him.
  496
  Indeed, for the sake of completeness—and on the off-chance that the Conservatives are in the mood for some co-operation and some constructive thinking—I should be more than happy to speak to them as well, such is the broad-minded view of the Government on these matters.
  This is a useful opportunity to discuss the matters raised in the orders. We are determined to do far more to change the whole culture of the welfare state and we want to get people into work, because we believe that work is the best possible means of achieving independence. I want to stop a situation where far too many people who could work do not have the opportunity and become dependent on benefits, with everything that that entails in social and economic terms.
  At the same time, we want to help people in childhood—to ensure that they have the best possible opportunities—through support from the welfare system and the education system. We want to ensure that pensioners can retire with a decent level of income, and that was the main driver behind the pension proposals that I announced last December.
  In respect of people of working age, the Government will announce over the next few weeks a number of steps on which people will look back and say, "That was the turning point when people's rights and responsibilities were rewritten." We will be able to do far more to provide opportunity and to deliver an enterprising economy, as well as a secure future, for those who can, quite rightly, look to the state to provide that. I commend the orders to the House.
  1.47 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State set out to be brief, but his speech was dragged out for a bit longer than he anticipated. As he said, this is a low-key debate, but it is also wide ranging and has always been treated as such. We do not oppose the orders, for the obvious reason that many of the upratings and changes are vital for those who need the benefits. It is therefore important to consider the debate in the context of range—rather than specifics and too much detail—and to try to get to the bottom of what, exactly, the Government are about, now that we have had two years to look at this matter. Yet the one thing that the Secretary of State did not say much about was the famous pledge that the Prime Minister made before the election and continued to make not long after it. In April 1997, he said:
  "As we get welfare bills down … then we can release more money into education and health and services where we really want them".
  After the election, he went on to say:
  "I have asked Ministers at the Department of Social Security"—
  admittedly not the current Ministers—
  "to look in detail as to how we can make far reaching reforms that tackle insecurity and poverty as well as reducing the social security bills".
  I shall not spend a huge amount of time on this, but given the Secretary of State's—
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is not on good ground.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I think that I am on good ground, and the right hon. Gentleman will find out just how much

  497
  good ground we are on today, because the Government set themselves a target and it is fair to measure them by it. I do not want to be churlish, and hon Members do not want to be too mean, but when someone is elected on a particular policy objective it is fair that people should know, each year, whether it is being met.
  The Government carried out a huge spending review; indeed, the Secretary of State was the man responsible for that review, around which so much of the relevant measures are set. As we were told by the Prime Minister, the review was meant to reduce the cost of the social security spending, but we find, using the Government's form of accounting, that the rise over the three relevant years—three years towards the election—will be £37 billion.
  We must not question whether that objective is good or bad, but whether that is exactly what the Government said. [Interruption.] No, from the Government's point of view. There is much in the review that is unnecessary, and we will deal with that in more detail later, but the Government disagree. They took on the Conservative Government's projections; the Secretary of State will remember that, because he considered them in his spending review.
  The Conservative projections were for growth of £15 billion over the same period, but the Government's figure is £37 billion. The gap between the figures needs to be examined and set against the increases in health and education spending. After all, that spending was supposed to be increased as social security spending was due to be decreased.
  Let us put some of the record straight in regard to the line that the Government inherited. In the financial year 1997–98, social security spending fell as a proportion of gross domestic product for the first time in a long period. That was the year in which Labour inherited total expenditure of 11.9 per cent. of gross domestic product. It followed four years of falling social security spending. The Secretary of State inherited a budget that was not climbing but falling, but the Government have managed to turn the position around and increase the budget.
  We are talking about a massive increase. The Government will take the figure from 11.9 per cent. to about 13 per cent. before they leave office—and leave office they will: I feel certain of that, notwithstanding the temporary blip on the front page of today's edition of The Times. The wrong questions were clearly being asked.
  The Secretary of State no longer refers to that basic failure, but we have referred to it. It is there, a badge by which the Government will be measured. The Government have failed so far, and they will fail in the future; but what underlies their failure? That is what I really want to talk about.
  Mr. Webb: Anyone trying to be independent—as Liberal Democrats are, of course—in deciding which Government had spent more on social security would consider whole Parliaments, and would strip out the cyclical element. Picking different points in a cycle messes up such judgments. An independent assessor would not say that the first two years of a Labour Government did not count because that Government had been following Tory policies; they were in office,
  498
  and they could have changed things. On the basis that I have described, every Tory Parliament since 1979 raised benefit spending more than this Labour Parliament will. Is that not true?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I do not disagree with that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about cycles, but the point that I was making to the Secretary of State is that we were pressing down on social security spending, and that he therefore inherited a falling budget. That was the cycle in this instance. It is no good the Labour Government saying that they inherited a budget that was rising, which was inherent in what was said by the Secretary of State.
  We can look all the way back to 1945, and see an inexorable rise in the budget, regardless of which party has been in government. During different cycles, the rise has been at different levels. That is what today's debate is all about. How can we deal with such a position, and how can we deal with the structure that has driven much of what has happened?
  As I have said, when Labour came to office it set itself a specific target. The Prime Minister said, "We are going to cut social security spending", but the Secretary of State has to admit that the Government are not going to cut it. It will rise more rapidly than was predicted by the Conservative projections, which were examined independently by a number of bodies. That is the only point that I am making. The target is the Government's, and they must be measured against it. Does the Secretary of State accept that?
  Mr. Darling: What the Prime Minister and the rest of us said was that we would cut the bills of economic failure, getting people who could work into work. We also made it clear that we wanted to do more for pensioners, that we wanted to do more to end child poverty—which is why we are increasing child benefit—and that we wanted to help people with disabilities. As the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the increased spending for the next few years, half of it will be devoted to pensions, about a quarter will be devoted to people with disabilities, and a bit less will be devoted to children.
  We know that the hon. Gentleman wants to cut, indeed abolish, working families tax credit. If he believes that our spending is wrong—and, if he does not, he should not criticise it—will he tell us what he will cut? The leader of his party and the shadow Chancellor have said that they will cut social security spending. What are they going to cut?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: That was a remarkable attempt to rejig the pledge. Let me repeat what I quoted earlier. The Prime Minister did not just say that the Government would transfer the money to deal with social ills. He clearly said:
  "As we get welfare bills down … then we can release more money into education and health".
  Later, he added:
  "as well as reducing the social security bills".
  I am not going to discuss whether such proposals are good or bad; we could debate that at length. [Interruption.] I have my views, but I am making a clear point. With respect, Labour Members are in government. The point of today's debate is to decide what the Government will do about that pledge.

  499
  I feel sorry for the Secretary of State. He has had to appear at the Dispatch Box yet again and pretend that none of this happened. The fact is, however, that the Government are raising social security spending by £37 billion a year. Does the Secretary of State disagree with that?
  Mr. Darling: We are spending more on pensioners. We are spending more on child benefit—a record amount. We are able to do that for two reasons. First, we are maintaining prudent control of public spending overall and have set our spending for the next three years. People accept that that is the right thing to do—it is affordable and prudent. The only people who are against it are Conservative Members. Secondly, by examining social security spending that we think should be cut—for example, that spent on people on benefit who should be in work, or gateways to benefit that should be tightened—we will cut those bills. I repeat the point that, in this Parliament—the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is right—the rate of growth of social security spending will be half that of the previous Parliament.
  This is not an arcane debate. It is important to people because the amount that they get either in assistance to get into work, or from pensions and so on matters. Therefore, I repeat the question: if the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) intends to complain and moan about what we are doing, will he please tell us what spending he would cut? He must have a view on it. The Conservatives have been in opposition for nearly 20 months. Surely they have come to some view on the matter, other than that working families tax credit should be abolished.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: It is a Labour pledge. The Secretary the State can do whatever else he likes, but he cannot wriggle off that hook. Labour said that it would cut social security. As we run towards the next election, we will make it clear to the British public that they cannot have it all ways as the Labour Government have pretended. They pretend that they can increase massively spending on social security, education, health and everything else without having to raise taxes. That is the critical issue. The Government are not telling the public the truth. That is what lies at the heart of the failure.
  A much more important issue lies behind all that: why the Government will fail on all those objectives. What exactly drives the Government? What is their clear agenda? It is not quite what the Secretary of State laid out—there is a deeper subtext.
  It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's determination to change the social security system, using the idea that, at the top line, work solves all problems with regard to poverty. Behind that lies the other part of the equation, which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, touched on: the growing level of means-testing. The explanation for that is that the Chancellor also has to focus on the bottom 10 per cent. He believes that that is the only way in which he can now direct the money. He cannot have it both ways, otherwise he will end up increasing spending even at a greater rate than the Government are about to do.
  The Chancellor did not tell the public about that and Labour did not campaign on that at the election.
  500
  I discovered something the other day quite by surprise. In 1993, when the Chancellor addressed the Labour party conference, he said:
  "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 30 years of the welfare state has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people."
  I want to examine to what extent anything he is doing runs anywhere near that process. As I have said, the Chairman of the Select Committee needs to think about that one. The man who was against means-testing, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—he is now sitting on the Benches behind the Secretary of State—was pushed out ultimately by the man who is for means-testing.
  The criticisms by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead of that system and process have been widely publicised. He said in 1998:
  "Means-testing penalises honesty, discourages work and harms thrift".
  Let us analyse that and see exactly what is happening within the Government.
  First, the Treasury takeover of the Contributions Agency deliberately fudges the connection and distinction between national insurance contributions and taxation. At present, we all know that two separate agencies collect tax and national insurance, but that takeover, notwithstanding the Government' assurances in the other place that it is just a functional step and tidies things up, is a deliberate step to eradicate any distinction. In brief, it is a short functional step towards sending the national insurance system into oblivion.
  What comes next begins to make the case. It is the introduction of what the Secretary of State referred to as the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. I think that that is a misnomer; the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Northavon, picked that up. It is no such thing. It is an income support guarantee for pensioners, which is fundamentally different. That is another example of the Government running their misleading rhetoric well ahead of reality. They want pensioners to believe that they will all get an increase. As the Liberal Democrats have pointed out, that is not true. Pensioners are not that stupid. They know that this is about income support because they know what income support is all about. The Government are merely shifting the base to income support while freezing the level of the pension. They have increased the scope for means-testing, which, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead has pointed out several times, is a mistake.
  Another negative effect is that many pensioners will choose not to take the money. The Secretary of State mentioned this important issue. A significant number of pensioners whom we believe to be eligible—almost 1 million, I think—do not claim income support. Increasing the level of income support will merely chase the error. The Government will not solve the problem if they merely add to the aspect that pensioners do not like. Perhaps there is a reason for that. Perhaps they know that fewer people will take the benefit and are hoping to save money. The solution can surely only make matters worse.
  Mr. Paul Goggins: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument on means-testing. If he were ever to regain power—that is a separate debate—would he abolish means-testing?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has received his brief to ask a question, because the

  501
  Secretary of State was worried that no one was intervening. I enjoy independent minds on both sides, but I question whether independence can be stretched in this case. The purpose of my speech today is to discuss the ills of means-testing. I believe that the extension of means-testing that the Secretary of State is carrying out is wrong and will damage the system.
  Mr. Chris Pond rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I want to press on with my point before I give way again.
  Pensions Week said—
  Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that means-testing is wrong, is he repudiating the ideas that he set out in the pamphlet "Who Benefits?" that he and some of his hon. Friends published in 1993? He said that it would be difficult and undesirable
  "to bring back an effective system of state assistance organised solely on collective social insurance lines."
  Is he saying that the Tories would abolish all means-tested benefits if they returned to power? How on earth would they pay for that?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Those are absurd extrapolations, but as the Secretary of State has raised the issue I should like to talk about it. He should read the pamphlet, which I think was remarkably good. It dealt with the reorganisation and restructuring of the benefits system. Can it be focused on a means test or does the system have to be simplified so that it can be based more on eligibility rather than simply concentrating on means-testing? The pamphlet gives options both ways. My view is that extending means-testing is a mistake and will not solve the problems. As we approach the election, we shall make it clear how we shall rectify the problems.
  Mr. Field: Is it not absurd to debate whether one side or the other is going to abolish means tests? Is not the crucial question whether the direction is to increase or reduce means-testing? I have a better question for the hon. Gentleman. Should the Conservatives get back into power, would the direction of their policy reduce or increase means-testing?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I accept that the objective is not to debate what happened two, three or four years ago. Looking ahead, my instinct is that we must learn from previous mistakes. Before I discuss the Government's actions, let me say that they have not learnt at all from such mistakes. In fact, there is a clear agenda that will take them straight back to the worst elements of the past 35 years. I want to learn from those mistakes and not return to agendas that have failed. I hope that I have answered the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  Pensions Week calculated that after the minimum income guarantee is introduced next April, a married man who has saved up to £9,000 during his life will find that he has the same income in retirement as someone who receives the minimum pensions guarantee and who made no effort to save. The difference is that the first pensioner had to put aside some of his daily income and make that
  502
  hard choice while the other person did not. That is one of the inequities of the Government's policy. It is the biggest road sign that points to the ultimate demise of the basic state pension and the gradual emergence of a fully means-tested system.
  Before the Green Paper was published, the Government said, "Don't worry, wait for the Green Paper when all will become clear and all will be simplified." Yet the Green Paper offered absolutely nothing to the 10.7 million existing pensioners. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, "Rubbish", but I have spoken to many pensioners up and down the country and they all say the same thing. They say that behind closed doors Labour Members were telling pensioners not to worry and to trust them as they would restore the earnings link. They may not have said it publicly, but they certainly said it privately. Pensioners feel let down.
  Labour told 10.7 million pensioners, "Wait for us", but, instead of rectifying the problem, they introduced the advance corporation tax dividend tax hike which has hurt so many. They had the opportunity to help out the 300,000 non-tax paying pensioners and the 80,000 other pensioners who will be hit by that measure, but they chose not to. I do not know whether the Secretary of State made representations to the Chancellor, but if he did, they were clearly not heeded. It strikes me that the pensions policy is yet another measure that forces people further down the income scale.
  I do not want to spend much more time on the Green Paper on pensions because, as the Secretary of State said, we will have a debate on that next week when I intend to raise specific issues. However, it is worth noting that the Green Paper made a huge mess of pension provision which will progressively drive people down the income scale, and increase the numbers that are likely to fall onto income support. Most independent calculations are now beginning to show that.
  For example, the Government's plans pose a real danger that employers will close their occupation schemes to new entrants and simply offer them access to a stakeholder scheme to which those employers make no contribution. Employees will therefore lose an element of future income. The Government's plans also attack salary-related occupational schemes, signalling the death-knell for such schemes. The confusion in the Government's proposals may encourage people to join stakeholder pensions that may not prove to be the cheapest or the best investment for them. All the talk about capital limits is part of the debate about perverse incentives on the margins of means-testing, which the Government seem unable to understand, or which they understand for the wrong reasons. As many papers said, the Government's plans tinker with the real problems rather than tackle them.
  Let us consider the other factors that are linked to means-testing. Under the Government's new bereavement benefit, widows and widowers with no dependants will have their benefit withdrawn after six months despite the contributions having been paid. If that is not a severing of the contributions link, I do not know what is. The changes will mean that eventually many will be dumped onto means-tested benefits. The Secretary of State must know that because he indicated as much in his statement. He knows that the National Association of Widows said that it would like the state contributory principle to be upheld for future widows.

  503
  There is no question that the Government want to shift the child benefit system towards some form of means test, through taxation. The Secretary of State has not denied it. Government assurances on the matter ring hollow. Many mothers are now receiving forms through the post, asking exactly who is in the household and what the incomes are. The idea is to try to measure the household income. Big Brother is asking all those questions in order to be able to decide whether it is feasible to tax child benefit. The Government have said that they are thinking about doing that, and they are trying to find out some of the information en route.
  When the Government first said that they would tax generally, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
  "As the tax system currently stands, such a proposal would be very difficult to implement. The tax system needs to identify not just the recipient of the child benefit payment, but also the partner in the tax year who may be liable to tax on this payment. It would require the linking of the tax circumstances of all taxpayers with those of their partner. This would be particularly problematic for lower-and basic-rate PAYE taxpayers who currently do not make tax returns."
  The Government's annual report clearly stated that they intended to go down that road. It said:
  "we believe there is a case for higher rate taxpayers paying tax on Child Benefit if it is to be raised in the future."
  The Government have raised it, so do they intend to tax it? The IFS said:
  "The taxation of child benefit at the higher rate either raises almost no revenue or significantly increases the complexity of the tax system while raising relatively little revenue."
  Do the Government intend to tax child benefit? The structure of the system seems to be moving.
  Even worse is the side effect of going down that road on child benefit. For example, the IFS shows that about 90 per cent. of families with one earner and one partner staying at home looking after children would be losers. Of families with two earners, about 98 per cent. would be losers.
  The IFS said:
  "individuals would face a penalty for declaring cohabiting relationships involving children. As such without any further change we would expect fewer relationships to be declared."
  In other words, people would be driven into further dependency elsewhere in the system, and there would be statutory single parents who might in reality not be single parents. People who are honest about their relationship and get married will be penalised in favour of another style of relationship. That shows the short-sightedness of the Government's proposals.
  The IFS said:
  "The second alternative is to question the principle behind independent taxation. This question is clearly raised by the taxation of child benefit as joint income."
  The Government must clearly decide one way or the other.
  The clear line running through the Government's proposals amounts to the extension of means-testing and the repetition of many of the mistakes that have been made over the past 30 years or so. Before the general election, the Prime Minister claimed that the Government would reduce the dependency culture but, as I think I have shown, they pursue an agenda of extending means-testing, which all hon. Members should agree drags people into dependency, not out of it. The working families tax
  504
  credit increases dependency even more. The Treasury anticipated a 27 per cent. increase in claimants for the credit, which would increase the number claiming to about 400,000.
  Means-testing encourages fraud and deception. That is pretty much established. In its manifesto, the Labour party promised to tackle fraud, yet the whole ethos of the change will make it worse. The manifesto said:
  "Just as we owe it to the taxpayer to crack down on tax avoidance, so we must crack down on dishonesty in the benefit system."
  One cannot do that if one increases the structure that creates fraud in the system. From WFTC onwards, there is an increasing agenda of fraud, and not one that is likely to fade away.
  Most of all, the Government's programme attacks what I believe to be the nature of the family. It is becoming clear that the Government see work as the solution to all the problems and intend to drive through a vicious means-testing programme so that they can focus social security on the bottom 10 per cent. The policy is utterly flawed and flies in the face of the evidence on how best to deal with poverty in the community. The Government are in effect making war on families who are the greatest source of welfare provision and natural support for people in all income groups.
  For example, Ruth Lister, a one-time member of Labour's Commission on Social Justice, congratulated the Government on a Budget that moves away from "supporting the family". She is right on that. The new Treasury Minister, the Economic Secretary, also claimed in a speech in 1996 that marriage "doesn't fit any more". A theme runs through most of the utterances of Labour Members.
  The Government's policy decrees that natural structures are irrelevant and that work and children are all that matters. It is cloaked in a rhetoric that is meant to be all things to all people—very Clintonesque—and to disguise what it is really about. I predict that the policy will resolve nothing but simply make social breakdown worse, thus increasing dependency on the state, which will force up the cost of social security faster even than the expected rise over the next three years. It will put further burdens, through increased tax, on those on marginal incomes, and will drive them down into the benefit net.
  The Government had the perfect opportunity to try to understand what has driven the dependency culture over so many years and, frankly, they have failed. They are still locked in an out-of-date extremist agenda that has at its heart the hatred of the family structures that would offer balance and economic viability. They will fail, I believe, as Labour Governments before them have done, but the saddest part is that it is not their failure but the failure of all of us. The future is not bright. The future is means-testing.
  2.17 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: This debate is important because it matters to so many people in my constituency and throughout the country. They will welcome most of the proposals. I welcome the increase in child benefit. In reply to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), I would say that, if there is one notable item supporting the family, it is that substantial increase.

  505
  For the first time, I will not be a beneficiary of the increase, so I can speak dispassionately.
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend should then declare a non-interest.
  Mrs. Humble: I will not comment on my right hon. Friend's aside.
  I welcome the guaranteed minimum income for pensioners, which is another important initiative that will have widespread support, but I want to concentrate on disability benefits. I am especially pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State emphasised the fact that the Government's policy is based on a strategy of inclusion rather than exclusion, bringing people into the community, whether in paid work or as volunteers, and encouraging disabled people to see themselves as full members of our society. The many benefits under discussion are all part of that strategy.
  I am especially pleased at the extension of the higher-rate mobility component of disability living allowance to three and four-year-olds. However, I have had approaches from disability groups who would like the benefit to be extended to children under the age of three. I would welcome any comments that my right hon. Friend might have on that.
  I wish to refer to the wider issues of the DLA and the benefit integrity project. Many hon. Members in the Chamber will have heard heart-rending stories from constituents about their dreadful experiences with the BIP. Last January, my advice surgeries were full of people whose Christmas present was an immensely complicated form to fill in for the BIP. They did not understand it. They had been awarded a benefit, they thought, for life—but then they were told that it was not for life and would be taken away. That caused heartache, bewilderment and anger.
  I was pleased last year when the Government introduced many changes to improve the operation of the BIP. However, we must realise that the BIP has failed and will be abolished. I look forward to receiving the letter to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred, which details the changes and the new procedures. It will be important to look at the details of what will replace the BIP and how it will operate.
  I have received complaints from constituents about the operation of the DLA and the BIP, but I represent Warbreck house in Blackpool—where the DLA has its headquarters. I visited Warbreck house to talk to the staff who implement all of the procedures, and I met people who were anxious to deliver a good service. They wanted to help those who were coming to them for a service. They did not like being portrayed as ogres who were somehow there simply to deny people a benefit or take it away from them.
  Talking to the staff made it clear to me that they were looking to us as parliamentarians to provide a system that they can implement fairly, and which will deliver the service that all our constituents deserve. In looking at the replacement for the BIP, and how the DLA will be administered, I hope that the Secretary of State will be looking at training to ensure that members of staff know
  506
  how to deal with people with disabilities—especially those who go into the homes of disabled people to talk over their benefits with them.
  Those people have a difficult job. It is vital that, in assessing need, they get the assessment right, but, in so doing, they often find themselves asking intrusive questions to which people object. I am not saying that there is an easy answer, but we need to approach the issue with sensitivity and tact to get it right in the first place, so that there is less likelihood of people getting benefits to which they are not entitled, or not getting the full benefits that they deserve.
  Mr. Webb: When the hon. Lady visited the DLA centre in Blackpool, did the staff express frustration at the length of time it takes for appeals on DLA decisions to be dealt with? My constituent, Mr. Price—about whom I have asked a written question today—had his money taken away four months ago and still has not heard.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not put a constituent's case on the record during an intervention.
  Mrs. Humble: There are concerns about getting information from doctors and others, and the whole system needs to be looked at so that my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) all receive a decent service.
  Although DLA is an important benefit, it is important to acknowledge that the welfare state is about more than social security benefits. When I meet disabled people, they often talk to me about the wider services that they receive from local authority social services departments and health authorities, because social services also assess people's needs and deliver services. Many councils are now taking advantage of the new system of direct payments.
  I wish to raise the issue of joint working across departments. Welfare reform is not just about welfare benefits. It is about making sure that individuals—whether they are people with disabilities, families with children or elderly people—can access the whole range of services and support systems that they may need. The Government are keen on so-called joined-up government, and I hope that that means joined-up central and local government—and anybody else who can get involved—to provide total support.
  Many local authorities currently offer one-stop shops for advice, and I would like to know whether the Government are looking at taking part in those initiatives so that benefits advice is available, together with other advice from other local authority departments.
  Since I am keen on joint working, I was pleased to receive a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, announcing that Blackpool is part of a new project as part of the invest-to-save strategy of the Treasury, which involves joint working. The council, the benefits agencies and the employment services will work together to facilitate the gateways to housing benefit and council tax benefit and to ensure that the processes are in place to counter fraud. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members are listening because we are talking about an excellent Government initiative to counter fraud.

  507
  For the first time, there will be joint new claims-visiting teams and a one-stop central benefits information team. There will be joint training and very much more. It is exactly that sort of initiative that will help the Government to succeed in their welfare reform, but it will help also the recipients of the reform.
  There is much to welcome in the regulations, and the in announcements today and over the past few months from the Government. There is still some way to go in delivering the proposals, but I am sure that more questions will be asked in the wider debate that must take place. I certainly welcome the announcements today.
  2.27 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have a chance to take part in this important debate. There is a lot that we welcome in the statements today, and important upratings are being made. We certainly welcome the advances beyond the usual uprating in line with inflation that is taking place in some areas—particularly in child benefit. These are welcome increases in benefits that needed to be increased.
  It is not my intention to spend a long time praising the Government today, and I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me if most of what I say is to comment on the differences that my right hon. and hon. Friends have with the Government. It is important to use the time to try to persuade the Government about what we think they are getting wrong, and to persuade them to change their mind.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is making his leadership bid.
  Mr. Rendel: I hope that there will be no more sedentary interventions such as that one, as they help neither me nor any of my colleagues.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is why he did it.
  Mr. Rendel: I am sure.
  We heard from the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) that the increase in child benefit will help some of the poorer families in the country. On the whole, families with children tend to be poorer than those who have no children. It is right, therefore, that, we should look to child benefit as a way of using the benefits system and the welfare system to give a bit more money to those who need it more, rather than to those who need it less.
  There are better ways of increasing child benefit than the Secretary of State is suggesting. Importantly, the families who are likely to be least well off are those where one or the other parent—or, in a single-parent family, the parent—decides to stay at home to look after their own children. The Liberal Democrats think it is important that that option should be available to those who choose it. Therefore, there is a good case to be made for doubling child benefit for the youngest child in a family that has a child under the age of five. It is primarily in families with a child of pre-school age that one of the parents will want to stay at home to look after that child.
  We acknowledge that the Government are making changes that will help with child care, but I am less worried about families who need some form of child care
  508
  to help them look after their children than about families in which one parent wants to stay at home to look after a child rather than go out to earn a living. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the policy that was adopted by the Liberal Democrats at our conference last year—that, in a family with at least one child under the age of five, child benefit should be doubled for the youngest child under that age.
  If necessary, that could be paid for by taxing child benefit for families with at least one higher-rate taxpayer. I do not for a moment want the Secretary of State to think that this is yet another item to come out of our proposal for an increase of 1p on income tax. That proposal has nothing to do with the policy that I have described.
  The second difference that I want to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State has to do with the minimum income guarantee, a matter that the right hon. Gentleman touched on briefly in his speech. However, all that is guaranteed is that everyone achieving pension age will be eligible to get a certain minimum income: it is not a guarantee that everyone will in fact get that income. In last Thursday's equivalent debate in the other place, the Under-Secretary, Baroness Hollis, made it clear that the pilot schemes investigating why pensioners on low incomes do not claim the income support to which they are entitled are finding that some of them do not claim simply because of the stigma associated with claiming.
  I accept that the Secretary of State is doing his best to overcome the problem of stigma and to introduce pilot schemes to persuade people who have worked and paid national insurance contributions all their lives that it is their right, at the end of their lives, to have that income support to bring their incomes up to a minimum level. However, even if he does everything he can in that regard, a considerable number will still not make a claim and will be left with an income below what the Government accept is the minimum on which people can live.
  In passing, I note that the Secretary of State did not, as I asked when I intervened in his opening speech, give me an estimate of the number of people who, even in future, will be living below what he calls his minimum income guarantee because, for whatever reason, they do not receive the income support for which they may be eligible. I hope that he will rectify that later.
  The Secretary of State may suggest that no alternative plan exists for dealing with most of the very poorest pensioners, but I take this opportunity to remind him of an option that I hope he may take up in the near future. It was first proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), and my party has since adopted it. My hon. Friend has proposed that pensions should include absolute guaranteed amounts of £5 for people over 80 and of £3 for people over 75. The present tiny increase available of 25p is simply irrelevant, given the amount of money those pensioners should get. The proposal would target some of the poorest of our pensioners without running into all the difficulties of means testing. I suggest that that would be a way around the Secretary of State's problem.
  Thirdly, there is the matter of capital allowances, which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has raised already. Last week, in the equivalent debate in the other place, Baroness Hollis said that capital allowances caused some people who did not claim income support to live on incomes below the income support base level. She

  509
  said that some people were ineligible to claim income support because they had too much capital somewhere in their savings.
  It is true that many elderly people fervently believe that they have to keep a certain amount of capital set aside. For example, they may not want their families to have to meet their funeral expenses, they may want to pass the capital on to their children, or they may feel that they need to keep it for an even rainier day. People who are not prepared to spend their capital, for whatever reason, as a result have to live on a pension below income support levels and therefore below what the Government call a minimum living wage.
  We should not allow that problem to get even worse by not making any increase in capital allowance. Some capital allowances have not been increased for 10 years, in which time living costs have gone up by about 50 per cent. It is quite wrong to restrict capital allowances in that way, which can only make worse all the difficulties inherent in means testing.
  The fourth matter that I want to bring to the Secretary of State's attention is the benefit integrity project. The point has been made before, but I want to make it again. The Secretary of State said that the project had failed but he has decided to keep it going, even though no case can be made for doing so. He is right to look for a new and better scheme that could be introduced. It is very important to try to avoid potential fraud, and to ensure that people on benefit are reassessed so that they get all the benefit to which they are entitled. Such a reassessment will cause the amounts payable to rise as well as fall. However, there is no argument for keeping in place a system that the Secretary of State has already said has failed.
  My fifth point concerns the national insurance recording system, NIRS2. The Secretary of State said, rightly, that he was determined that the lesson should be learned. He was also right to say that the lion's share of the blame for what has gone wrong with NIRS2 lies with the previous Conservative Government. The Government have inherited a fiasco and a mess and are doing their best to sort the problem out. It is taking a long time; in the early stages, Ministers were remarkably secretive about what had gone wrong and failed to estimate how long it would take to put it right. However, we should all be grateful that now, at least, they have started to do so.
  I want to ask the Secretary of State about two specific difficulties that remain with what is happening under NIRS2. First, although the sums may not be very large, by the time the problem is fixed, some pensioners will have been underpaid for a year. Sadly, some of them will have died before any potential repayment can be made. What will happen in such cases? Will the repayment still be made to the estate? If not, what will happen to the money?
  The second difficulty has to do with widows, and may be even more important. Widows who want to claim either widows' pension or retirement pension are asked to choose which they would prefer. They have to make up their minds as to which pension will benefit them more. Yet they are not given all the information that they need to make that choice. The facts are not available; the computer is not working and people cannot make the
  510
  necessary calculations. However, they are being told that they must decide and that their decision, once made, is final and cannot be changed.
  Because of the failure of the NIRS2 programme, widows in those circumstances cannot fairly be asked to judge which pension they should choose. I hope that the Secretary of State will assure the House that widows who make the wrong decision—through the Government's fault—and who are finally told what would have been in their best interests, will be allowed to change their minds and revert to the alternative option.
  The Secretary of State may have seen the recently reported findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on what is happening in our society. The foundation points out that the inequality gap is widening. The number of people living in poverty, including children, is increasing year on year according to the most recent figures. Over the past year, the number of individuals on less than 50 per cent. of average income has increased. The number of 16 and 17-year-olds on hardship payments has also increased. There remains every indication of worsening poverty in every age group.
  I am sad that the Government—contrary to what their voters and the Liberal Democrats would have expected—are often doing the least for the poorest. Let me give some examples. An uprating of £2.50 on child benefit will mean 10p less for those who receive the family premium on income support. Under NIRS2, the compensation because of the system's failure will go to those underpaid by more than £100, who are due more than £10 in compensation, but it will not be paid to those who are owed comparatively small sums: the poorest will do worst. Pensioners who are receiving income support and who are perhaps slightly better off than those who do not receive it will be given a big increase in their guaranteed income support, but those who do not receive income support will not receive that increase in their pensions.
  Mothers who are trying to look after a child at home are no doubt less well off than those mothers who go out to work, but they will not receive the kind of help that the Liberal Democrats would give. Notoriously, help for lone parents is being reduced all the time, even though they are among the poorest of those who receive benefits.
  Our policies are targeted on the least well off, and our targeting often does not involve means testing. That is a significant difference in our policy. The Government are making the same mistakes as the previous Government in trying to drive the poor into work, and in trying to do so by making poor people poorer, while believing that the right way in which to make rich people work more is to make them richer. I am very sad to see the Government making those mistakes.
  2.43 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: Debates such as this provide a welcome opportunity to take a broad view of a subject. It is useful to remember that welfare reform encompasses whole strands of issues. The actual rate of benefit is significant, but it is part of a wider agenda.
  When Labour came to Government, the status quo was clearly unacceptable, for two distinct reasons. First, the benefits system had grown in such a way that even if we intended to continue with the underlying philosophy,

  511
  the system itself had ceased to be able to deliver, and it needed modernisation. Benefit chimneys simply did not relate to each other, and the system was not viable.
  Secondly, society had changed to such an extent since the major benefit reform that followed the second world war that many prevailing assumptions required to be challenged seriously. We needed to consider both the future and the current structure of the system. We had to think of claimants dependent on the system. Any change that we bring about must therefore be sensitive and gradual, but we must simultaneously look ahead to see how change will affect future generations.
  Post-war changes in society were demographic, but the dynamics of society changed too. We all live longer now. That did not mean only that there were more people of a certain age. It meant that people aged 70 and 80 were no longer revered for their wisdom, because there were suddenly so many of them. Deference to such groups was changed because the composition of society changed. Retirement age was once safely assumed to be fixed. Indeed, we should remember that Beveridge assumed that people would live only a few years after reaching retirement age. That age is, however, no longer a proper base for policy making. To say that 60 or 65 is a fixed retirement point does not take us far in considering how people's working patterns have developed.
  The debate about pensioners will become sterile unless clear distinctions are made about the needs of state pensioners and those who draw benefits who cannot effect any change in their circumstances. It is up to Government to provide a framework for those people, but merely to debate whether to upgrade the basic state pension by one means or another takes us little further forward, in that it does not deal with the comprehensive needs of pensioners.
  For future generations, we must consider the needs of those who are in work and who can provide for themselves: the Government's role lies in providing a proper structure that will enable them to save for their retirement. We must distinguish between those people and part-timers, people who take career breaks and those who will never earn enough from their work to put away money for retirement. We must also consider the people who simply do not fit into the cash and taxation structure, such as carers. The needs of those different groups must be carefully separated out before we can press ahead. It is sad that the needs of different groups are often mixed up in debates such as this one, so that there is no coherent argument.
  The Government have made a tremendously good start in trying to restructure welfare. I am extremely pleased by the way in which benefits agencies, employment services and local authorities are being brought to work together. That allows those organisations to focus once again on the needs of the people who are the system' s beneficiaries.
  However, we must also return to creating incentives for work instead of dependency. The working families tax credit, help with child care, and especially the national minimum wage are significant in that regard. Among the changes I most look forward to are the single gateways, the 12 pilot projects that will be monitored so that we can see whether they should go national. Those projects display a change of approach, from being passive and reactive to being proactive and enabling.
  512
  One issue is often ignored in welfare debates. If we wish to restore faith in the social security system, we must restore the faith of the beneficiaries and of those who work in the system. However, we must also restore the faith of those who pay for the system—the taxpayers. People are prepared to pay taxes only if they feel that they get value for money.
  The social security system is most obviously financed through income tax, and it is interesting to consider who contributes most to that. The top 1 per cent. of taxpayers pay 20 per cent. of income tax, and the top 10 per cent. pay 48 per cent. of the yield. The next 40 per cent. pay a further 40 per cent. That leaves the bottom 50 per cent. of taxpayers contributing 12 per cent. of all income tax. There is considerable distortion in the system, but income tax is only one part of the funding.
  International comparisons are often interesting, and I should like to draw attention to figures from Germany. I do not assume that Germany's rates are desirable, or that the United Kingdom should move towards them. My point is that we can have a system where people pay considerable amounts into the social security system while having faith in it and trusting it. The figures must be considered in that context.
  Taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom and Germany is roughly the same. In Germany, it is 38 per cent., in the UK 36 per cent. However, on social security taxation as a percentage of tax revenue, in Germany, employees pay 17.6 per cent. and employers 20.5 per cent., compared with the UK, where employees pay 7.2 per cent. and employers 9.6 per cent. In the European context, that is very low.
  When people think of our main sources of taxation revenue, they always think about income tax but forget taxes on consumption, but we raise about one fifth of our taxes from VAT. What are the knock-on effects of that? Why does it matter to social security? It matters significantly, because unless people have faith, and there is some transparency about the money that they put in so that they feel a right to draw on it when they are in need and the stigma of scrounging is reduced, we will not progress but will repeat the patterns of the past 30 years.
  We should remember how income tax has progressively become a burden on lower income groups. It was not until the 1960s that families clearly below average income started paying income tax at all. At that point, income tax became an important factor in determining work incentives. Income tax rates matter when people decide whether it is appropriate to work. Taxation became a work disincentive in the 1960s. The resulting poverty and unemployment traps are one of our most intractable social problems, the result of 40 or 50 years of development. The working families tax credit is an important first step to breaking that vicious cycle.
  I have a few words on national insurance contributions. I hope that the House is capable of intelligent debate, and that we can consider the upper earnings limit without Opposition Members jumping up to ask whether I advocate scrapping it; I do not. I am saying that we should intelligently consider national insurance contributions and the hypothecation argument in a social security context.
  I have some basic facts. National insurance is levied at a flat rate of 10 per cent. for employed workers paying class 1 contributions. There is a slightly lower rate for those who have contracted out of SERPS, the state

  513
  earnings-related pension scheme. National insurance contributions affect work incentives and play an important role in the poverty and unemployment traps. Interestingly, the Thatcher Government were able to increase national insurance contributions step by step, while reducing income tax; it appeared that they had reduced the burden on working families when actually they had not. In 1979, national insurance contributions stood at 6.5 per cent.; by 1983–84, they were 9 per cent. The lower bands were restructured and by 1994, they were at 10 per cent. For many people, that eroded all their headline income tax rate gains.
  The regressive aspects of national insurance contributions are most clearly shown by considering different income rates. Someone earning the average income of £20,000 a year will pay about 8.6 per cent. of his or her annual income. Before someone asks how it can be 8.6 per cent. when the rate is 10 per cent., I should explain that a lower rate is deducted on the first portion of income. For a very highly paid person earning £200,000, national insurance contributions are payable only up to the upper earnings limit of £25,220. The remaining £174,780 are not subject to national insurance contributions, which, for such people represent only 1.1 per cent. of their income. That is directly contrary to the principle embodied in income tax: as income rises, the percentage deduction should increase.
  The Government have realised this and taken some steps to start to address the inequalities of national insurance contributions. All employees will benefit from the abolition of national insurance contributions below the lower earnings limit. It is interesting to consider why the Thatcher Government got away with such changes while making people think that they would be better off, when national insurance contributions are shown on pay slips just like basic income tax. The reason is that our taxation structure is not transparent or easily understood. If people do not know how they pay for the services that they should expect, confidence cannot be restored.
  I want to discuss hypothecation, which is a tempting solution to that problem.
  Mr. John Burnett: Before the hon. Lady goes on to hypothecation, is she arguing that national insurance contributions should be subsumed into income tax?
  Ms Stuart: No, I am arguing that we should have an honest, grown-up look at the way we collect tax revenue, whether by income tax, national insurance, VAT or corporate taxation. Any debate on how welfare is financed must equally consider how the Government collect revenues, of which national insurance is one. A big advantage of national insurance is that people think that they derive some direct benefit from it. They assume that it is a hypothecated tax. People assume that they pay into the national insurance fund and draw from the pot of money when they retire or require health services, whereas in fact it is a current fund. I do not advocate one solution or another, except to say that some honesty is required.
  We must consider what is most appropriate. One could argue that an annual statement of national insurance contributions to every taxpayer would give them some
  514
  input. That would be in line with the Government's proposals for a pensions contributions annual statement. That may help to restore faith. My basic argument is not about taxation but about how to restore faith among those who pay for social security and for the services that the state provides.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Lady accept that the contributory principle whereby people make contributions towards the national insurance fund and receive a pension, such as SERPS, is deeply embedded in our national conscience? We believe in that as a country; it would be a pity to move away from it. All the contributions are listed, and one must have paid them to get a full pension. That is all more typical of insurance than of tax.
  Ms Stuart: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am simply saying that the system needs to be more transparent so that people have a clearer idea of what they think they are paying for and what they can expect as a result. Unless that link is restored, we will never get away from people entitled to benefit being made to feel like scroungers. That is equally undesirable.
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says about the importance of transparency so that people understand what they are getting and where they are getting it from. Does she agree that an additional problem is that many of the services that people on benefit require are provided by local authorities? There is a double whammy of national cuts and increasing local cuts in many services. People do not care where services come from but they want to know why they are being generally cut.
  Ms Stuart: The hon. Gentleman highlights a problem of transition. The Secretary of State for Health said that it would take time to turn the oil tanker round. Social security is not a tanker but an intricate web at the centre of which are the most vulnerable people. As we move to changes of service delivery and how that is financed, such tensions will appear. We must acknowledge that they occur and ask how we will deal them. I do not deny that such tensions are apparent. The Government are now setting the right framework and putting us on the right rails to move ahead.
  May I draw the House's attention to my reservations about hypothecation? It is a tempting idea, which has been compared to taxation by numbers—a system in which one chooses what one wants to pay for. I am sure that, in areas such as health and education, the public would be happy to pay a hypothecated tax, but what happens with a hypothecated tax for improving conditions in prisons? That would not be terribly popular, but it is a nevertheless necessary function of the state. That is why it is inappropriate to cherry pick. However, there is a place for a form of hypothecation, as the Government have shown in their use of the windfall tax to finance the new deal. It is a question of horses for courses.
  On NIRS2, the Government's task is significant. The previous Government signed the contracts and, when I was serving on the Social Security Select Committee we decided that new technology was needed and that the only way to go was forwards. The modernisation requirements are significant, but even more important is the need to

  515
  restore faith in the system, which will take much longer. The only way to restore faith is to restore the confidence of those who draw benefit, those who work in the system—we tend to forget the stress under which they work—and those who pay for it.
  The Government have made a good start. We are reducing fraud significantly. The previous Government ignored the fact that it is no good simply to have initiatives that look at fraud in a targeted way through random sampling. The best way is to create a benefit structure that "designs fraud out". Checks should be made from the start to make fraud much more difficult. The Government are moving ahead on that—we have introduced a modernisation programme, single gateways and a national minimum wage, and national insurance contributions are to go down.
  The thought with which I should like to leave the House is that, whenever we debate welfare reform, we must remember that this generation and future generations have distinct needs. The most delicate task is to ensure that current pensioners, disabled people and single mothers are looked after while we change the structure to provide for the next century. I look forward to watching the Government rise to that challenge.
  3.3 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: There was a high level of hope and expectation when the Government first came to office, 20 months ago. The reason for that related to a simple rule: if people want defence spending fundamentally reorganised—even rationalised or cut—it is easier to ask a Conservative Government to do it because they are considered to be in favour of defence and could not be accused of wanting to attack the military. The same argument applies to Labour Governments in terms of social security spending.
  Both sides of the House have long been concerned about the ever-increasing cost of social security—both Front-Bench spokesmen rightly exchanged insults on that subject. However, social security spending has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase, and nothing that those on either side of the House can do will make a difference to that essential economic truth.
  When it became inevitable that, sadly, we were to have a Labour Government, those of us interested in social security thought that a redeeming feature of the otherwise unmitigated disaster that was about to descend on our nation would be that a Labour Government could introduce the fundamental reforms in social security, which, for good political reasons, the previous Conservative Government could not introduce, especially given the fevered atmosphere of their last few years in office and their very small majority.
  We were encouraged in that belief by the obviously senior position that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) held in the counsels of the then Labour Opposition. Our faith was further reassured when he was the first Minister of State to be appointed, and when he was made a Privy Councillor on the very first weekend after the election. Although a junior Minister, he was clearly right in the centre of Government.
  The problem that immediately became apparent was that the excellent ideas that the right hon. Gentleman was formulating in opposition, although absolutely correct from a philosophical point of view—that of trying to
  516
  create responsibility in society—were impossible to achieve in the short term if the Prime Minister's other pledge was to be achieved. The right hon. Gentleman's pledge was to think the unthinkable; the other pledge was altogether more prosaic and had more influence with the electorate.
  In "The Leader Interview" on 7 April 1997, the Prime Minister said:
  "As we get welfare bills down … then we can release more money into education and health".
  That quotation was rightly thrown across the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  We now have a response from the Government: the Prime Minister did not mean that at all. Anyone who approaches those arguments rationally knows that it is impossible to reduce the social security bill, and anyone listening to the Prime Minister must have known that—we did. The Prime Minister was actually saying that we would increase the sum spent on social security, which is precisely the opposite to what he said on 7 April 1997. I cannot believe that the public were so gullible as to believe what they were told.
  The Government's defence now is that they are less wicked than the Conservatives—that, although they are increasing the total sum spent in real terms on social security, as the Conservatives did, they are doing it in a slower and less wicked way. I accept that that would not have been an attractive quotation for "The Leader Interview".
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Extending that logic, does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister thought that, had he told the electorate that Labour would increase the cost of social security, he might have lost the election, which is why he did not do so?
  Mr. Leigh: We have only to quote the Foreign Secretary. We know that the Prime Minister was prepared to sell his soul to win the last election; therefore, a minor juggling around with the levels of social security would presumably not have caused him a great deal of worry at the time.
  Mr. Heald: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Prime Minister talks a great deal about some of his proposed increases in spending but, funnily enough, not about those in social security? Although the increase of £37 billion is as much as the total of other increases, it is hidden away in the Red Book under "tax and accounting adjustments".
  Mr. Leigh: I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked that question of the Secretary of State earlier in the debate. Did he not ask the Secretary of State to confirm that figure of £37 billion contained in the comprehensive spending review in the Red Book, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) alluded? Intriguingly, no answer was received.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: He did not deny it.
  Mr. Leigh: As my hon. Friend reminds me, the Secretary of State did not deny it. However, as we are debating the operation of social security benefits, it would

  517
  be nice to receive some information from the Minister who is to wind up the debate, as to whether we are quoting the right figure. Does the figure of £37 billion that the Opposition are quoting accord with reality? To save time, I should be happy to give way to the Minister now, if he wishes to intervene on that point.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me? I offer no challenge to my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Leigh: Of course I will.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea as to whether, after his discussions with the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), he believes that, if the Conservatives had openly told the electorate at the last election not only that they had dramatically increased social security spending and taxation, but that they had increased threefold the numbers of people in poverty, it would have made a good manifesto commitment?
  Mr. Leigh: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman obtains his statistics. He has an honourable record, for which I give him credit, of speaking in the Chamber on behalf of those who are in poverty, but he is fundamentally mistaken in what he says. I am sure that he knows that I am prepared to be critical when necessary, but what actually happened under the previous Conservative Government was a massive increase in the wealth of the nation during 18 years of successful economic management, and all sections of the population benefited from that massive increase. However, he has made his point and will no doubt speak again later.
  We have not yet received an answer to that crucial question about the £37 billion. It is the essence of our argument today and I should like to know more about it. Conservative Members have also made the point that the working families tax credit will increase the level of social security spending by £1.5 billion and I am not sure whether we have received a response to that, either when the Social Security Committee questioned Ministers on the point, or when the House debated working family tax credit earlier this week. It would be difficult for the Government to deny that figure of £1.5 billion, because it was originally given to the House by the then Financial Secretary, who is now the Paymaster General.
  It would also be interesting to receive confirmation or denial of the percentage increase in social security that we are discussing today. My noble Friend Lord Higgins, who speaks on social security for the Opposition in the other place, referred to a figure of 10 per cent., but I have seen a figure of 11.5 per cent. Will the Minister confirm whether either figure is correct?
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead was correct in his earlier intervention. We cannot be absolutist in the matter of abolishing means-testing in the system. We all know that no Government can abolish it, whatever we want to achieve. However, the right hon. Gentleman was right to frame his question in the moderate way that he did, because it is true that neither a Labour nor a Conservative Government can abolish means-testing, but in which direction are we moving? Are we moving away, however gradually, from means-testing while fully understanding the political difficulties involved in doing so?
  518
  We all know that huge difficulties are inherent in the thinking of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, in terms of a short-term increase in public spending. We understand that and, as politicians who deal with political realities, we also understand the difficulties that the views for which he argued privately when he was a member of the Government posed to the Treasury's correct short-term priority of keeping public spending under control. We know about the difficulties, but the answer to his question was not received. There might be an answer in the Minister's file.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I gave an answer.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend gave an answer, but, sadly, he does not speak for the Government.
  The questions are simple. The first is about that £37 billion and the second is about the direction in which we are moving. Are the Government, in real terms, gradually managing to solve the problem, however slowly; or is our basic charge correct—that they are doing the reverse and actually increasing means-testing in the system?
  After the Secretary of State last came to the House to give a statement on pension reform and welfare reform generally, it became clear—especially from press comment which was united on the point—that we now have a Secretary of State who is not committed to root-and-branch reform, but is committed to the re-election of the Labour Government, who is not committed to thinking the unthinkable, but is committed to tinkering with the system. That is the type of Secretary of State that we have and, no doubt for that reason, he will be very successful, but I doubt whether he will be successful in getting to grips with the fundamental problems of the system.
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the concept of a minimum pension guarantee? If the level of the basic state pension is not increased, the Government can say, "Oh well, all the poorest pensioners are being protected by the minimum pension guarantee." However, over a period of time, the contributory universal benefit that we all value so much will be changed into a system of means-testing. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a major step down a road that he and I do not want the country to go down?
  Mr. Leigh: I was coming to that point, which is the fundamental one that we want to put across in the debate: the concept of a minimum income guarantee is uniquely dangerous to the contributory principle.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has made clear, what is on offer is not a minimum income guarantee. It is not a guarantee, because it is not something that one receives, whatever one's level of contributions or however much effort one has put into one's working life. It is simply a guarantee that no pensioner's income, whatever his past record of contributions, will fall below £75 a week. It does not take a genius to recognise immediately that that will result in a massive disincentive to those on low incomes to take out any form of second pension provision.
  For that reason, it would be extremely dangerous and bad financial advice to those on relatively low incomes to take out such provision, because, whatever they did, they would always be supported by the state and given that £75. We are going down a dangerous road.

  519
  Before my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) intervened, I was coming to the subject of child benefit. The Government, in this and other debates, have made much of what they hope to achieve with child benefit. We have heard little in this debate about it, although we shall hear bad news on the subject in the Budget, but the Government are determined to tax child benefit. The Social Security Committee did some interesting research—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I missed that remark. If hon. Members want to intervene, I am always willing to give way. There is little doubt that the Chancellor will tax child benefit in the Budget. The Select Committee's inquiry into that and the worries of all the members of the Committee should be given credence by the Government.
  The problem is simple. We all recognise that it may be inequitable for people to receive the same level of child benefit, whatever their income, and we may accept that as a point of principle or a first point from which to argue. We may accept that the Government should concentrate help on those least able to afford to look after children. It is dangerous to accept that because it immediately leads us on to means-testing. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has been arguing that for years. What will be the effect of all that?
  We tax the individual or we tax the family. We were told that, if the Government tax the individual, they receive a derisory amount, and, if they tax the family, they attack the principle of independent taxation. I suggested a practical example during the Select Committee's inquiries. I am worried about typical families, living in London, earning £31,000 a year and therefore paying the higher rate of income tax, who may find that their child benefit is taxed after the March Budget. Such families do not, in London terms, earn generous salaries. Why should they be taxed extra? Why should the burden fall on them? We all know the cost of housing in London. Why should a married man in London, perhaps with four children, be more highly taxed than someone living in London who has no children at all?
  I cannot, for the life of me, see any justification in taxing child benefit unless the Government are prepared to say that they will tax only individuals, not families.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Does my hon. Friend agree that, before the general election, page 25 of the Labour manifest said:
  "We will uphold family life as the most secure means of bringing up our children. Families are the core of our society",
  and that penalising families as the Government are doing flies in the face of that commitment?
  Mr. Leigh: I hope that the Labour party meant that when it included that statement in its manifesto. I repeat that no one who has come before the Select Committee or who has tried seriously and objectively to deal with the issue has found any justification for taxing the child benefit of families.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I shall. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will give me that justification.
  Mr. Pond: It is useful to have this debate. No decisions have been made, and the Chancellor has said that it is
  520
  sensible to have the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that his suggestion that, if the change were made, families with children would be more highly taxed than those with none misses the point that families with children receive child benefit, whereas those with none do not? There has been an historic increase in child benefit.
  Mr. Leigh: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that his argument is semantic. Child benefit replaced a tax allowance. The hon. Gentleman is the proud father of a beautiful young daughter, whom I know he spends much time looking after, so he knows perfectly well that children represent a real cost, way above the amount given in child benefit.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The main point that Labour Members are deliberately missing, which I hope my hon. Friend will address, is one that I put to the Government, although I received no answer. It is that, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, the proposals could lead to a significant problem because those who are honest and open about their relationships will be taxed, but those who hide their relationships and pretend to be single parents although someone else is sharing their income will not suffer. That penalises the family structure and benefits those who abuse it.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I could not help noticing that, when he made that point earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State was giggling. I do not want to do him a disservice. He was giggling not because he does not think that the subject is serious but because he thought that my hon. Friend was making an idiotic point because of course no one would be dissuaded from marriage by the level of a little benefit.
  Have we not, in the past 50 years of the welfare state, learnt the lesson that, bit by bit, the structure of the welfare state and its benefits has an impact on behaviour, particularly for people who, for whatever reason, do not earn much money? When we discussed the issue in the Select Committee, nobody was able to give a satisfactory answer as to how the measures would affect cohabitees as opposed to married couples, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pointed out.
  We are making a justifiable point. We should not only argue that the measures are an attack on independent taxation, although that is a good reason for not proceeding with them. The better arguments are those adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.
  Again and again, in the Select Committee and in an intervention in the debate earlier this week on the working families tax credit, I made a point to which I still await a response. Perhaps I shall receive one during the Minister's summing-up. My point is that the working families tax credit will inevitably be an attack on the classic Beveridge family of two married parents only one of whom is an earner. The proposal will encourage cohabitation or it will encourage both partners to be earners. Women should have the right to work and they should also have the right to stay at home and look after their children. That is what they want. There has been no response to that important point, which needs to be made again and again.
  I shall move on to the wider issue of the NIRS2 computer, which disturbingly, we have heard today, affects 180,000 pensioners. The Government's basic

  521
  defence seems to be that the problems are all the fault of the previous Conservative Government, who introduced the computer, and should have foreseen the problems. It is true that the computer was introduced by the Conservative Government. The bid made by Andersen Consulting was £60 million cheaper than the next bid. Although the Secretary of State cannot criticise Andersen Consulting, I, as a Back Bencher, am entitled to ask why the company undertook the project. Could not an organisation employing 40,000 people worldwide have appreciated that the NIRS2 computer is the most complex in the world?
  The Secretary of State's defence is fundamentally flawed for one reason. I have obtained from the Vote Office the 46th report of the Committee of Public Accounts which deals with the NIRS2 computer and was published in June 1998. The Committee said:
  "We are very concerned that the implementation of the new system is already nearly 18 months behind the date agreed … and that the Agency face an immense task catching up with their operations".
  It recommended that the agency should
  "draw up contingency plans to cover the risk that delivery of the system would be delayed."
  If that report was published in June, what contingency plans were made by the Department of Social Security, the agency or other Departments in response to the Public Accounts Committee's suggestion? That report sheds a worrying light on what is happening inside government. The way in which such contracts are entered into is worrying, too.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member could mention such matters in passing. We must remember that there are several specific matters before us. I understand him asking the Minister about contingency plans, but going into a Select Committee report is for another day.
  Mr. Leigh: I am coming to the end of those remarks, although, in defence, I should say that the Secretary of State introduced the issue. However, I accept your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall move to a different matter.
  On the means-testing of incapacity benefit, which is central to this debate, Lord Ashley said:
  "The attack on occupational pensions is disturbing. It will hit disabled people very hard and we should make every effort to persuade the Government to change it."
  Sally Greengrass of Age Concern said:
  "Penalising savers will not encourage prudent planning or saving in the future."
  I mention those points because little has been said about the means-testing of incapacity benefit. The Minister's response to those comments would be interesting.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Conservatives means-tested invalidity benefit against occupational pensions—not if someone had more than £50, as the present Government propose, but from the first pound. Did he accept and welcome that precedent?
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman once again returns to the previous Conservative Government's record. I had
  522
  hoped that I had made it clear that neither Government's record on means-testing is as welcome as it should be. I also acknowledged—I hope positively—the political pressures on both Governments. Of course I accept that there was means-testing under the previous Conservative Government. I was making the point that what the previous Government did is not of interest to the House. That is history; we cannot put that toothpaste back in the tube. We are interested in what will happen in future. We want to know the Government's plans. Are they intending to increase means-testing generally? What is their response to Age Concern? How can they expect old people to act prudently if means-testing is increased?
  The Select Committee also did considerable work on the issue of the benefit integrity project. We received various assurances; the Government told us that it will be replaced with a "fair and sensitive system". We still await an answer from the Government on which "fair and sensitive system" will replace BIP. I have asked Ministers again and again—I have not received an answer, for I fear that no answer can be given. How they can replace BIP with a "fair and sensitive system" but at the same time attack the concept of lifetime awards?
  Lifetime awards, on which I have asked Ministers questions, are fundamentally wrong. The Government appear to agree with me that the system is open to abuse. Does that not therefore mean that we must go to disabled people again and again to ask very detailed questions—intrusive questions, questions that will be resented, and questions on forms that may run to many pages? How can we get rid of the system of lifetime awards yet still reassure disabled people that we will not ask over-intrusive questions or put them under stress? I wish that I knew the answer. Luckily, I am not in government. Such an answer would be interesting.
  The Government have met their responsibility to upgrade all benefits in line with inflation, which is no mean achievement—it was achieved, too, by the previous Conservative Government, although not by the previous Labour Government, who governed in altogether more difficult economic circumstances—but, what the Government have achieved is not enough. They are simply fulfilling their fundamental duty to the less privileged and the deprived. We on the Conservative Benches were hoping for something far more exciting, such as a fundamental attack on dependency. We were hoping that the new Prime Minister had some creative plans to take people out of dependency and into work. Although the Government will of course reply that they have all sorts of plans and ideas for doing so, very little progress is being made on the ground as a result of the Budget. That is very sad indeed.
  3.35 pm
  Ms Rosie Winterton: I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in today's debate, especially because I know that so many of the changes that we are making—I am thinking of changes to child benefit and pensions and of people who pay class 1 national insurance contributions—will make a real difference to many of my constituents who are low paid, living in poverty or unemployed. Many are living like that because of the previous Tory Government's policies.
  I want to make points about class 2 national insurance contributions because I am very concerned about the circumstances of several constituents who have made

  523
  representations to me. I can perhaps best illustrate my concerns by referring to the case of Donald Smith, a constituent who lives in Edenthorpe, in Doncaster. Mr. Smith is 36-years-old. About two and a half years ago, he was made redundant from the railway industry in which he had worked for 17 years. He went to work for another company, which insisted that he did so under self-employed status. The company refused to pay his tax and national insurance contributions. Mr. Smith was concerned about that, so he went to the Contributions Agency. Although staff were dubious about whether he should be considered self-employed, he was told that he should pay his contributions, and that he could protect himself by paying class 2 and class 4 contributions, which would entitle him to retirement pension, widow's benefit and incapacity benefit.
  Mr. Smith was made redundant once again, but then secured employment in the railway industry—this time on a temporary contract—with a company that paid his national insurance and tax contributions from November 1997 to August 1998. During that time, he paid class 1 national insurance contributions. However, Mr. Smith was made redundant again following a takeover. When he went to the job centre, he was told that, because he had had a period of self-employment during the previous two tax years and his partner, with whom he lives, earns £13,000 a year—even though they are taxed separately—he was not entitled to either non-means-tested or means-tested jobseeker's allowance. Despite the fact that, for the previous 11 months, Mr. Smith and his employer had been paying class 1 national insurance contributions, he was not entitled to any jobseeker's allowance. Therefore his recent period of employment did not really make a difference.
  If Mr. Smith had been paying, and had previously paid, class 1 contributions, and if the company that he had worked for had done the best by him and employed him properly, he would have received about £1,300 in jobseeker's allowance had he remained unemployed for a full six months. Instead, he received nothing.
  Mr. Smith expressed his opinion to me bluntly. He felt that he would have been better off if he had not taken the job for which he was forced to become self-employed. He took it, but then felt severely penalised by the system and felt that the contributions that he had paid for the past 10 months—and for the 17 years previous to that period of self-employment—provided him with no help when he needed it. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has already spoken about the need for people to feel that they will get something out of the system that they pay into when they need assistance.
  I have made inquiries of the Contributions Agency. I was told that, even if Mr. Smith had offered to pay his own national insurance contributions to class 1 level, plus the equivalent of his employer's contributions, he would not have been allowed to do so, because the system does not allow for that. Once a person is self-employed, he is classified as such, and that is that.
  I strongly believe that the present system, as it relates to self-employment class 2 contributions, is designed for a time when employment patterns were completely different—when self-employed people were more likely to be business men who might make provision for a business failure or for times of unemployment. A person such as Mr. Smith, who, 30 years ago, might have
  524
  expected to continue working in the railway industry—or another traditional industry, such as mining—throughout his life, would not expect to be considered self-employed.
  In 1950, there were about 1.5 million self-employed workers in Britain; by 1995, there were 3.5 million. The Government constantly point out that work patterns have changed in the past 50 years, which is true. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, Government policies are beginning to respond to that change. All the efforts to modernise the welfare and benefits system recognise that people may have one or more, or many, different careers in their life. To maintain a lifetime of work, a person may be employed, then self-employed, then want to return to employed status. The thrust of the Government's strategy is to ensure that the benefits system is designed to allow people to return to work with the maximum incentives, and to preserve their benefit entitlement, where that is reasonable. That is especially obvious in the changes that are being made for people with disabilities, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) mentioned.
  Even in the recent White Paper on competitiveness, we said that we should not encourage failure, but should encourage enterprise. However, for people such as Mr. Smith, the current system works against that objective. Because of the effect of the class 2 contributions, the system creates a built-in disincentive for the unemployed or those unemployed who have been self-employed, who may ask themselves, "Shall I become self-employed if a job comes up?"
  Might Ministers consider the possibility of designing a system in which a self-employed person could pay a third level of contributions instead of, or in addition to, class 4 and class 2 contributions? Those who paid that third level could secure themselves against future unemployment and know that, by doing so—by topping up what they were paying—they could be assured that they could benefit from jobseeker's allowance if their self-employment happened to cease.
  I know that many people are affected by the problem that Mr. Smith experienced—especially when employers refuse to take on people unless they agree to work on a self-employed basis. Recently, the Inland Revenue issued guidelines to ensure that employers treat workers as employees when, to all intents and purposes, they are obviously employed. The guidelines were aimed especially at the construction industry, but the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union is worried that the Revenue does not always pursue as vigorously as possible complaints that are made about companies that do not adhere to the guidelines, and which effectively make employees stick with class 2 contributions. That means that they have no security if they are made unemployed.
  The AEEU has estimated that the cost to the Exchequer of companies avoiding paying national insurance contributions is about £1.2 billion a year. Would the Minister tell me, either today or in writing, whether the new guidelines have succeeded in placing employees on a proper footing regarding national insurance cover? How many companies have had action taken against them by the Inland Revenue when they were found to be in breach of guidelines? How many complaints have been made about companies in that regard?

  525
  I welcome many of the upratings that we are discussing. I believe that they will make a real difference to many people in my constituency. However, I have worries about class 2 contributions, and I believe that we need to ensure that the system is fair to people who pay those contributions. We must also ensure that employers do not force people to pay class 2 contributions by insisting that they work as self-employed. We must ensure that the Exchequer does not lose out because companies avoid following the Revenue guidelines. I know from discussions with Ministers that they are aware of the problems which I have outlined. I hope that they will be considered sympathetically to ensure that, in future, the system is fair and equitable for all.
  3.49 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). I listened to her speech with interest. She is right to point out some of the difficulties in the fine print of the class 2 and class 4 contribution systems for the self-employed. In the future we need to focus on the self-employed as a class to make sure that the inequities do not continue. Injustices do exist, and people have a poor understanding of what they are entitled to in return for the money that they are contributing.
  Perhaps I can engage the hon. Lady's interest in trying to help me to stimulate a full-scale debate on the future of the contributory principle. The argument that she advanced so concisely and cogently is part of that wider strategic debate. I look forward to reading her speech as evidence to that end.
  This is a valuable debate. I point out to the business managers that for other aspects of public policy—for example, defence estimates—there are allocated days on which the House considers overall expenditure in that area. We are lucky that the Chair allows us a fair degree of latitude. Earlier participants in the debate have taken full advantage of that to discuss the totality of social security spending. In the past, Opposition parties have been rather creative in selecting statutory instruments to tag on to the uprating order, so that the debate could be broadened.
  The uprating of benefits is an important occasion in the parliamentary calendar for consideration of social security in the round, but it would be helpful if we could spend an afternoon or a day examining the implications for all benefits, contributory and non-contributory. That is what I tried to suggest earlier in my intervention to the Secretary of State's speech. We need to understand what direction the entire system is taking. Perhaps we can pursue that through the usual channels, possibly as part of the modernisation process.
  I am worried about the future of the contributory principle. The Minister was kind enough to drop me a note last week adverting to the written answer dealing with the industrial injuries scheme on 20 January at column 474. The Secretary of State said that he was looking into alternative replacements for no-fault compensation arrangements that would meet the objectives of the current scheme.
  That is an example of an individual initiative that is fine as far as it goes, but if industrial injuries compensation arrangements suddenly become an on-cost for employers
  526
  as an attempt to modernise an intrinsic part of the contributory benefit system, that will be another example of the salami-slice approach to the basis of the contributory principle. We must be careful about that.
  Looking at the detail of all the orders, I am worried that much of the motivating force for reform is coming from the Treasury, not the Department. My fear—I say this to the Minister neutrally—is that while the Department is doing its best to make the current system work, to get things right first time, to deal with fraud and to do an honest job, all the change, the reforms, the so-called modernisation is being driven from the Treasury. I do not believe that the Treasury has a genuine understanding of the contributory principle, or any history or tradition of supporting it.
  I agree that interdepartmental working is necessary to achieve sensible changes in benefit, but I am getting increasingly nervous about the signs that the Treasury is entirely in the driving seat. I know that the Minister, as a new Minister, will be interested in making his mark. If I may give him a little avuncular advice, all he needs to do is to sort out the Treasury, and his ministerial career will never look back.
  Mr. Fraser: That was a leader's speech.
  Mr. Kirkwood: It was not a leader's speech—I care more for my sanity.
  I shall refer briefly to the report of the Acheson committee, which dealt at length with the health equalities in our nation. We should pay careful attention to one of the sentences in the report, in which Acheson stated that
  "empirical evidence comes from research demonstrating that people whose incomes consist entirely of state benefits"—
  which we are uprating this afternoon—
  "have insufficient money to buy items and services necessary for good health."
  We cannot ignore that, when we set income support levels. If that is true of health, it must be true of housing, too.
  The Secretary of State's speech was devoted—understandably, as this is the Government's main strategy—to efforts to get people off benefits and into work. Housing benefit is by far the biggest hurdle to that, and we must bear that in mind.
  To return to Donald Acheson's point, I believe that we often do not look carefully enough at the adequacy of benefit levels. I recommend to the Minister as bedtime reading a book by John Veit-Wilson which was published about six months ago, entitled "Setting Adequacy Standards: How Governments Define Minimum Incomes." It makes interesting reading because it examines what other Governments do. It is honest about setting adequacy standards that are scientific and based on research, as opposed to those that are politically affordable.
  I recognise that what social scientists determine as the minimum income for a two-child family may not be affordable. Even if it were affordable, important work-incentive problems would be involved. If poor families are paid more benefit, the incentive to work is reduced. The issue is not straightforward. Veit-Wilson and others demonstrate the need for a definable standard that would create a base-line around which the debate could take place. We do not have such a base-line at present.

  527
  The welfare reform Bill that we confidently expect in the next few weeks would provide an opportunity for that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will tie a wet towel round his head and lead the charge. Whoever serves on the Standing Committee can look forward to many happy hours of close scrutiny and cross-examination from him. I shall be sitting in the Public Gallery, occasionally cheering him to the echo.
  The welfare reform Bill will offer an excellent opportunity to start thinking—if the Government have not done so already—about setting and defining a standard. The Green Paper published by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) while he was still a Minister set out performance indicators. The Government were brave to do that. I thought that some were rather intangible, to be honest, but performance indicators are valuable because they allow people to test Government's performance. I hope that the idea has not been lost.
  I was lucky to join the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) at the relaunch of the new Policy Studies Institute report on public policy indicators. If the Minister is stuck for bedtime reading, he may add that to his list. It further developed the idea set out in the Green Paper. Such performance indicators are extremely valuable and should be considered by the Government.
  Related work has already been done by the family budget unit on low-cost but acceptable standards of budget. I understand, as I said earlier, that some of those levels may be unattainable politically, immediately. However, the Family Budget Unit discovered that at January 1998 prices, a low-cost but acceptable level of income support—assuming 100 per cent. housing benefit and 100 per cent. council tax benefit—would be £160.82 a week, not £121.75 a week. That represents a shortfall of £39.07 a week for a couple aged over 18 with two children and who are not in work. We could argue about what is in and what is not in, and what should be in and what should not be in, but that is a severe shortfall in such a family's budget.
  A family in such circumstances might be able to live with that level of shortfall for a brief period—we are all trying to achieve a situation in which people are on benefit for only a transitional period and then get back into work—but such a level is unsustainable for people on long-term benefit. It is therefore not surprising that Donald Acheson's report found that, in the long term, people's health suffers because of the inadequacy of benefit levels.
  The Government are fond of saying two things in their defence when they are charged with shortfalls and inadequacies of that kind. They say, "Don't worry, there is a minimum wage coming and £3.60 an hour will make a big difference." Well, the family budget unit's report, "Low Cost but Acceptable", deals very effectively with that line of defence. It says clearly:
  "A minimum wage of £3.60 will not prevent family poverty"
  and says why it thinks that is so.
  The Family Budget Unit also says that average female manual earnings and family credit levels for two-parent families are below "Low Cost but Acceptable" level and, perhaps more worryingly, it finds that it is unlikely—those are January 1998 figures—that the working families tax credit will remedy the situation. Even those figures do not reach "Low Cost but Acceptable" levels of income. A lot of work has to be done to ensure that we know what
  528
  the people on the level of benefit that we are agreeing to this afternoon have to face in terms of long-term periods on low income.
  I have two other things to say about that, staying with the theme of inadequate levels of income. Although the social fund account is not directly covered in the orders, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the 1997–98 social fund account has been published this very day. Two things concern me. First, I have been worried for some time that—although I believe that the levels of income provided for in the uprating orders are inadequate, and we could argue by how much—increasing numbers of people on benefit are repaying social fund loans.
  I am getting very nervous about the extent to which that is compounding the difficulties, the poverty and the effects on health. I am worried that about 330 million social fund repayments are being made annually. I understand the principle behind the social fund, and think that it is positive. If more interest-free loans were made available, especially for community care grants, public money would be saved in the long run, but the amount of money for such grants has been static at £96 million for the past two or three years. We should consider that, because it impacts on the totality of people's incomes.
  Those on low budgets would be helped to make ends meet if the Government looked carefully at the budget for community care grants and the impact of the discretionary element of social fund repayments that are currently being made.
  The Minister knows that the Government Actuary—who always compiles a report on such orders—has recommended for the balance in the national insurance fund a
  "minimum level of one-sixth (16.7 per cent.) of benefit payments".
  I would be interested in the Government's response to the report's conclusions, because the balance in the fund—the money that we are not spending—is likely to be
  "significantly higher than estimated in the report on the changes in April 1998 … because of a higher opening balance".
  That is understandable, and it was inevitable. He adds that there have been
  "significantly higher contribution receipts, lower benefit payments, lower payments to personal pensions and higher investment income than were estimated at this time last year."
  That deserves some comment from hon. Members.
  No Treasury grant is coming into the fund for 1999–2000, which is a questionable decision, considering the inadequacy of benefit levels. The Government Actuary concludes by discussing the
  "balance in National Insurance Fund at the end of successive financial years",
  which is expressed as a percentage of benefit payments in the previous financial year. In 1998 it was 22.5 per cent., against a minimum of 16.7 per cent.; in 1999 it is 27.6 per cent., which is a positive balance; and the projection for 2000 is 29.4 per cent. People are entitled to ask what is going on. The balance is going up fast—a lot faster than inflation and a lot faster than pensions. The limit is 16.7 per cent., but we are heading for 29.4 per cent. next year. No Treasury money is being put into the fund, so why cannot we make better use of some of the money in the fund to expand and develop contributory benefits?
  There is overwhelming need—demonstrable need—to look at those inadequacies. It would be to the benefit of the whole House if the Minister dealt with that in his

  529
  winding-up speech, so that we can keep the debate's context of the totality of the expenditure in some kind of understandable kilter.
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Paul Goggins: It is, as always, a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I pay tribute to his work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, on which I had the pleasure to serve for almost a year.
  The Committee debated and took evidence on the benefit integrity project when I was a member. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said this afternoon that the BIP is finally to come to an end. Many hon. Members, and certainly all members of the Select Committee on Social Security, will be delighted by that. I have received a written answer from my right hon. Friend this afternoon, giving details of what will come after the BIP. He said in his speech that he would be writing to all hon. Members, but his answer to me today reads:
  "Initially, the new system will exclude DLA recipients whose cases were examined by the Benefit Integrity Project".
  That is welcome. Those who have suffered should not have to go through that process again. The answer continues:
  "People with a fixed period award due to end within the next three years will also be excluded"
  from the new system.
  Mr. Oaten: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might make sense to exclude from the new system people who were excluded from the benefit integrity project—those groups that were exempt? The written answer has not made any mention of that.
  Mr. Goggins: The written answer goes on to explain that all those things will be handled sensitively and in consultation with the groups with which the Government have regular discussions. All those points will be taken into consideration as the discussions proceed. Crucially, the written answer mentions training and evaluation after six months of operation, so it is clear that the Government take this whole issue extremely seriously.
  The BIP, to refresh the memories of hon. Members, was founded on the spurious claim that there was £500 million of benefit fraud within the DLA system. The project was drawn up, without proper consultation, by the previous Government and implemented by officials three days before the general election. It was targeted only at those claimants on the highest rates of DLA, which meant that claimants—
  Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Goggins: I shall finish this point. Claimants could only lose, rather than gain, benefit.
  Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
  Mr. Hayes: I would be the first to acknowledge that I have not been here for the whole of the debate, but a point
  530
  that the hon. Gentleman made concerns me. I accept much of what he said, but the Government have been in power for a considerable time and many of these things have taken place during the past two years. Surely he would join me in attacking his Government—at least mildly—for not dealing with what he clearly described as an outrage much sooner.
  Mr. Goggins: Several of my hon. Friends are suggesting that you have only just arrived—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I have been in the Chamber for a considerable time, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would use correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Goggins: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In any event, I am glad to have the opportunity of making clear to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) my belief that the Government have acted with integrity. They have exempted various categories that would otherwise have been caught by the benefit integrity project; moreover, crucially, they have created a partnership with disabled people's organisations, which Ministers have been developing over the past few months. Now they are winding up the benefit integrity project, and replacing it with a system that does not assume that every claimant of disability living allowance is a benefit fraudster, but ensures that the right amount of benefit goes to those who need it. That is a good example of the Government's attitude in taking seriously a hard-hitting Select Committee report based on evidence, and listening to disabled people and their organisations.
  We have heard this afternoon, and in other announcements and statements, about action that the Government are taking to give further support to people with disabilities. The higher mobility rate of disability living allowance is to be extended to three and four-year-olds: £35 a week is to be provided for families who, surely, need that extra help. Pilot projects are already under way for the new deal for disabled people. That will bring into the workplace people who have been shut out and ignored for years—people who have been treated as though they were incapable of work, although many want and are able to work. The Government are also introducing the disabled persons tax credit and the disability income guarantee, which guarantees £128 a week for a single disabled person and £169 for a couple.
  As we have heard again this afternoon, at the heart of Government policy is the aim of getting people off benefits and into work. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)—who unfortunately is not in the Chamber now—was sceptical about that, but the fact is that 400,000 more people are in work now than at the time of the general election, and 53,000 people under 25 are in work who otherwise would not have been. Those are incredible statistics. Young people who were formerly dismissed and excluded are now working, mostly in unsubsidised jobs, as a result of the new deal. So far, the Government have halved the number of young people who are long-term unemployed. I do not think that these are grounds for scepticism; I think that they are great grounds for optimism.
  The aim of returning people to work will be furthered by the extension of the new deal to lone parents, people with disabilities and older long-term unemployed people.

  531
  Family-friendly policies will encourage more people back into the workplace. Crucially, one of the orders that we are discussing reduces employers' national insurance contributions, which will encourage the creation of jobs.
  As well as creating more jobs, however, we must ensure that work pays—that it is worth while. Notwithstanding the statistics cited by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, the minimum wage will make a difference: it will make a difference to the take-home pay of 2 million workers, many of them women. There is also the guarantee of a minimum income of £10,000 a year for working families, and—this, too, is in one of the orders that we are discussing—the abolition of the employees' £69 fee for entry to the national insurance system.
  Those who cannot work, because they are disabled or retired, have family responsibilities or cannot find work—some people, of course, fall into all those categories—must be supported. That is central to today's debate. I do not think anyone would pretend that income support amounts to a king's ransom, and I urge the Government to continue to do all that they can to raise incomes above the income support level. That should be our aim. Much has been said this afternoon about the role of means-testing, but the fact remains that, in the first year following the general election, 100,000 fewer people were claiming income support than at the time of the election.
  Earlier, my independence of mind was called into question, but I was trying my best to square what the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was saying about means-testing—his sudden rejection of it—with the fact that the last Government presided over a massive expansion of means-testing in the system.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Speaking of independence of mind, may I bring up the question of the Conservatives' independence of mind? I know that we have new arrangements for Thursdays, but I find that I have been given a parcel of oral Treasury questions by Conservative central office. Is our independence of mind now being challenged on Thursday mornings? Are we to be offered Treasury briefs to help us through Treasury questions?
  Mr. Goggins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make good use of that additional briefing.
  The last Government ignored a serious issue. They thought that, by cutting insurance-related benefits, they could drive down the cost of social security; but by ignoring the fact that one in five families had no work and ignoring the pensions and savings needs of those on middle and low incomes, they created a move towards more and more means-testing. That is why the benefits bill has doubled over the past 20 years.
  The trend in pensioner incomes has been similar to the trend in society as a whole. The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that all had gained from the increase in income over the past 20 years, but that simply is not true. In average terms, there has been a real increase in incomes, and those at the top—the better off—have experienced a massive increase. Those at the bottom, however, including pensioners, have fallen further and further behind. This is the position that the Government inherited: one in three pensioners is at or below the poverty line, and one in four people in Britain who are in poverty are retired people—pensioners.
  532
  Others have mentioned the report "Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion", which was published yesterday by the New Policy Institute. The report includes important findings about pensioners and their incomes. Pensioners with private incomes over and above the state retirement pension are likely to spend twice as much on food and half as much on fuel as those who rely on the state pension and means-tested benefits. The report also says that pensioners with private incomes over and above the state pension spend, on average, £146 a week, while those who rely on the state spend an average of £83 a week. That means that those at the bottom have a very different quality of life from those at the top.
  The Government are trying to reduce the gap. They are trying to do two things in particular. First, they are trying to create a framework for the future, as can be seen from the Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions", which was published before Christmas. They want to ensure that everyone has not just the state retirement pension but a second pension, so that more and more people can cease to depend on means-tested benefits. They want to build on the success of occupational pensions, but also to introduce low-cost stakeholder pensions and a second state pension for the very low paid and for carers.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Goggins: I hope that, if I do, the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to the Government's intention of introducing second state pensions for carers.
  Mr. Hayes: I did not intend to mention that specifically, but I want to make a closely related point.
  The hon. Gentleman seems to welcome the idea of looking at all of pensioners' income, rather than just income from the state. That is laudable, but is it not very similar to the Conservative party's proposal, made immediately before the election, which was so roundly condemned by people such as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues? Is there not a degree of hypocrisy in what he is saying? I agree with much of it, but, frankly, I think it very similar to what Conservative Members have been saying for many years.
  Mr. Goggins: My recollection is that it was in the air at the last general election that the whole state system would be privatised if the Conservative party regained power, whereas the Labour party and Government believe that the benefit of a second-tier pension, which better-off people have enjoyed for years in retirement, should be extended to those on middle and low incomes, so that all in society can have an income that is above the income support level. I hope that Conservative Members share that aim.
  We must not only create that framework for the future, but act now. As one of the pensioners whom I meet in my local pension forum often remarks to me, "When people talk about pensions policy, they always talk about the long term. I am 84. I need action now." The Government have indeed been taking action.
  We know that the value of the state retirement pension has fallen relative to earnings, but we also know that, if we were simply to increase the state retirement pension, those pensioners with the lowest incomes would gain the

  533
  least because, pound for pound, they would lose their additional top-up. We therefore have to find different ways in which to help the poorest pensioners.
  Value added tax on fuel has been reduced and, last winter, £50 extra was given for those on income support to help with their fuel bills. Free eye tests will be introduced from April and concessionary bus travel has been extended. All those things are important to sustain the quality of life for poorer pensioners. We also have the spending on the national health service and we are keeping inflation down. That is important for pensioners with limited savings.
  The Secretary of State said that more could be done and that he hoped to do more. I hope that the Government are able to do more. They should receive support from Conservative Members for doing more for today's poorest pensioners.
  At the heart of the policy is the decision to introduce for the poorest pensioners the minimum income guarantee, which has an above-inflation increase built into it—£5 for single pensioners, £7 for pensioner couples. If in future years the Government are in a position to deliver an increase above inflation again, they should be encouraged to do so, but more than just the value of the minimum income guarantee is important.
  The rebranding of income support and, before that, supplementary pension—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) laughs, but one of the consequences of its being called income support and supplementary pension is that it has put many thousands of pensioners off claiming their entitlement because they feel stigma and shame. We should change not just the name, but the level and the value, and work to ensure that all those pensioners who are entitled to receive it do receive it. Again, the Government must be commended for their work to ensure that more and more pensioners who are entitled to the benefit are able to receive it.
  Mr. Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we were to give a lump sum in the pension itself to older pensioners, that would be a better and more effective way to ensure that the money got into the pockets of pensioners than insisting on their demanding something through income support?
  Mr. Goggins: There are additions for older pensioners, but—I come back to the point that I made earlier—if we increase the state retirement pension, the one group of people who will not gain are those who depend on income support, because they will lose, pound for pound, their top-up benefit. The people who will benefit are those who already have substantial additional private income. So the Government are entirely right to target the effective support in the way that they are doing.
  Savings was an issue introduced into the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and various other hon. Members have commented. We all know that too many pensioners—many of them come to us in our surgeries and at other gatherings—feel that they are being penalised for having made modest savings; modest in this day and age. As soon as a pensioner has £3,000, he begins to lose support. When he has £8,000, he loses all support.
  534
  In their Green Paper, the Government have invited comment, debate and suggestions on how that position can be tackled. They have two choices if they are able to do something in that sector. They can disregard a portion of private income—income from an occupational pension or from savings—or change the savings limits: the £3,000 and £8,000. It would be interesting if the Minister were able to comment on that, but it seems to me that the most cost-effective way in which to tackle the problem and to better target benefit is to change the savings limits, so that people who do save and have something in the bank are not penalised.
  While I am making that point, may I ask the Minister also to consider the issue of funeral bonds? I know that there is an issue about whether they can be counted as savings, and that some discretion is exercised within the system over whether to count them as savings or not, but some pensioners in poorer parts of my constituency have put £1,000 into a funeral bond to pay for a dignified funeral. To view that as in some way dodging the system is perhaps taking things too far. I hope again that the Government will be able to consider that matter.
  Last week, I attended with a number of other hon. Members the launch of Church Action on Poverty's "Pilgrimage Against Poverty" campaign. At that gathering, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that the
  "whole purpose of being in politics is to help the poorest and weakest".
  I know that all my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members share that goal and aspiration. Certainly the Prime Minister shares it. He said clearly that, if Labour failed to help those at the bottom of society during the five years of its first term, we would have failed.
  I believe that we will assist substantially those who are at the lowest end of society. We must encourage people into work and ensure that work pays, but we must also change the social security system to assist people. We need to change the structure of the benefit system. The changes to bereavement benefits are a good example, reflecting changes in employment patterns for women, but also equalising the situation for widowers who have dependent children, who need help and who, at the moment, do not receive it.
  More than anything else, we need to do what the Secretary of State was calling for at the beginning of the debate: change the culture of the social security system. We have seen the potential for changing that culture with the new deal and with what has happened in the Employment Service. Anyone who has visited the local job centre and spoken to new deal staff will know how their job has been transformed by the opportunity really to assist, to advise and to support people back into work.
  That must happen throughout the social security system, particularly the Benefits Agency. I am sure that staff at the agency will welcome that opportunity. We must not just ask, "Do you qualify? Can you fill this form in?" but ensure that people get the right benefits and the right amount of benefit. We must ask, "How can the system support you?" so that we have a proactive system, rather than a passive system.
  I know that lack of money is central to poverty and that, where people do not have money, clearly, they are poor, but I also believe that a system with real concern for the poor does not just lob £1 or £2 extra a week on to

  535
  a person's benefit. It takes people far more seriously than that. If I consider the whole range of public services in health and education, the way in which we are trying to make the streets safer places, and the way in which the Government are encouraging people in poorer communities to get involved and to participate, I see that we have the opportunity to create the crusade against poverty to which all hon. Members should sign up and in which we can all engage.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate because it is fundamentally important to all constituents throughout the country, although I will use some instances in my constituency to demonstrate some of my points regarding the Government's position.
  The serious aspect of what we are discussing is the Government's record in power and their failure to live up to their pledges to the electorate, on the basis of which they were given the position of Government in the May election the year before last. High on that list is their failure to reduce welfare spending and to come up with a radical programme—as has been mentioned by my hon. Friends already—which satisfies the test that the Prime Minister announced in his first speech after the election. "Does the system trap people on benefits?" was one of the big issues that was taken up at that time.
  The Government's Green Paper on pensions was widely regarded as a missed opportunity, not just by the Conservatives but by those outside the House. The Government's proposals are not so much a radical reform as tinkering at the edges. It is important to repeat that, because they do not deal with the main issues. They propose a modification of the existing system rather than the new approach that we realise is a fundamental requirement.
  The aim is simple—to provide security in retirement for those who cannot save enough and to persuade those who can save to do so. The problem is also simple—ever fewer workers will have to support ever more pensioners as people live ever longer. The level of state pension that the country can afford will increasingly become worthless. It has been predicted that, in 50 years, 8 million pensioners could be making ends meet with only the help of income support.
  The cause is also well understood. There are many people who cannot or will not save for their old age. The Government have, as usual, promised much—a long-term and radical approach, difficult decisions and a reduction in dependency. In short, they have promised an integral part of a new welfare state for the new millennium. A great deal was expected of their long-overdue pensions Green Paper, which was finally published in December last year.
  We should have known better. There is evidence aplenty on the Government's broken promises and their propensity for saying one thing and ending up doing another. In opposition, the Labour party said that TESSAs and PEPs were safe. In power, they have praised those who make provision for their old age. However, they are now abolishing those two popular tax-exempt savings schemes. If they truly admire those who provide for themselves in their old age, why withdraw dividend tax credits for individual non-taxpayers, the majority of
  536
  whom are retired people on low incomes who depend on their modest share portfolios to cover household bills? My constituent Mr. Hindle summed up his concern thus:
  "The Labour party promised not to increase taxes. Isn't this a tax increase when those with tax allowances are not allowed to use them?"
  He went on:
  "As a thrifty pensioner, and my wife a housewife and carer, how do we ever hope to recover from the loss of an invaluable part of our income."
  We have talked about some of Labour's manifesto pledges. Another one was to keep the state earnings-related pension scheme for those who wish to remain in it. That has also been broken. The Government plan to abolish it and replace it with something slightly different. However, the son of SERPS is a stop-gap measure, because the Secretary of State hopes that it will become superfluous as the Government's stakeholder pensions are taken up.
  Why do the Government have a consistent compulsion to fix things that are not broken and to wipe the slate clean and start again in the name of modernisation? It is all the more disgraceful because they are changing the rules on pensions after responsible people have committed their money and decided on a long-term strategy for their retirement.
  What of measures to resolve the problems that I referred to earlier? What of measures to address the problem that too few people save enough to look after themselves in retirement? What of those who have to eke out a miserable existence on means-tested benefits courtesy of the taxpayer? To help the poorest pensioners, the Government have proposed a new guaranteed minimum income at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of £2 billion. Pensioners will have to be assessed to determine whether they are entitled to that so-called income. That is an extension of means-testing and perhaps a forerunner of a means-tested basic state pension, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said earlier.
  The real difficulty that I have with the proposal is the potentially damaging implication of guaranteeing someone a pension income regardless of their behaviour during their adult life. When that is coupled with the Government's decision to duck the principle of compulsory second pensions, it means that anyone reluctant to save could come to the conclusion that, if the state promises reasonable provision, there is no need to set aside money for their old age.
  For those on low incomes, an affordable level of saving will never produce a meaningful second pension. For those who are prudent and put away a little each week, their tiny pension will surely rule out entitlement to not only the guaranteed minimum income, but income-related benefits. Who in their right mind will sign up?
  To compound the problem further, the Government have pledged to uprate the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings. The value of the benefit to someone who has never saved will increase more quickly than the basic state pension and other state benefits and, probably, the return on investments. The threshold above which someone could gain by setting up a second pension will get higher with every passing year.
  In effect, the minimum income guarantee will extend means-testing and undermine the contributory principle. How can the Government reconcile that with the

  537
  Prime Minister's pledge to move away from the benefit culture towards independence of the individual? It does not square, and people are sceptical. How does the Government's approach persuade people on lessthan-average earnings to forgo jam today in the hope that they can afford bread in retirement, particularly when they see others on similar earnings enjoying not only jam today but perhaps a holiday or other treats in the secure knowledge that the state will provide the bread when the time comes?
  To encourage working people to make provision for their retirement, the Government have proposed stakeholder pensions. Is there any reason to believe that they will be more easily understood by people unfamiliar with savings and investment schemes? Are they likely to be safer or more flexible or represent better value for money than other pension schemes currently being marketed? If so, perhaps they might be more attractive to new savers, but the prospect of paying lower national insurance contributions is hardly an offer than cannot be refused, particularly to a youngster who has recently started work, to whom retirement seems a lifetime away, or to a young couple with a family whose daily needs leave little spare cash at the end of the week. The success of stakeholder pensions is dependent on a big if. At worst, they could threaten or destroy existing private and occupational pension arrangements.
  We face a muddle over the Government's new individual savings accounts, which are just weeks away from their launch. I am highly dubious that many of the criticisms that have been levelled against the stakeholder pensions can be resolved and that the Government will fully address many of the issues that have been raised today.
  I should like to turn again to the problems of today's pensioners—those who have made provision for their old age and face the reality that it will be worth less from now on. I have already spoken about the dividend tax credits. There is also the pensions tax, which abolished tax credits for pension funds and other non-taxpaying institutions. Most pensioners are thrifty. They come to surgeries in my constituency and talk about the sacrifices that they have made. They believe that they have been punished by the Chancellor, but it is too late for them to do anything to reverse the ever-increasing erosion of the monthly pension. All that they can do is tighten their belts. They fear the consequences, not least to their health. We have heard the feelings of one of the Liberal Democrat Members about that.
  Mr. Hayes: I have no wish to interrupt my hon. Friend's eloquent argument, except to add to the list of burdens that the Government have imposed on pensioners the withdrawal of tax relief on private medical insurance. Many pensioners have written to hon. Members complaining about that move. It disproportionately hurts pensioners and places an extra burden on the national health service. It really is nonsense and adds to his admirable list of concerns expressed on behalf of pensioners in Dorset, for whom he works very hard.
  Mr. Fraser: It was kind of my hon. Friend to make that last comment. Many pensioners who are tightening their belts had sought to minimise the impact of any future
  538
  health problems by taking advantage of the tax relief on private medical insurance. Now they are at the mercy of the national health service. I shall not discuss the Government's approach to the national health service, but I am sure that the House appreciates the mess that they have made of it and the burden that they are placing on pensioners who had helped themselves or planned to do so and can no longer afford private medical insurance.
  Another constituent, Mr. Bampton, wrote in response to the Government's Green Paper on pensions:
  "The Government is talking about things they may do in five years' time. We pensioners need help now. An interim measure. Not more consultation. If you have a fire in the kitchen, you do not call the insurance company first. You call the fire brigade."
  The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) said that instant work is being done to alleviate the problems affecting pensioners. I am afraid that he is much misguided. I frequently receive letters from pensioners who say that they need help now and not in five years time when they may not be here.
  Labour's policies have already damaged Britain's savings culture. The savings ratio has fallen significantly under Labour. Ministers, particularly those who are gossiping on the Front Bench now, live in a fantasy world if they believe that their pensions policy will reverse the trend.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: Along with other hon. Members, I was slightly astonished to hear the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) suggest that many pensioners relied on means-tested benefit because they could not or would not save. Many of our constituents would find that rather insulting. Many pensioners who have worked hard all their lives now have an inadequate level of income, not because they have not saved or worked, but because of the actions of the previous Government, who took some £10 billion a year out of the state pensions scheme and made cuts in the basic pension and SERPS, leaving many pensioners reliant on means-tested benefit. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was candid about the mistakes of the previous Government.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole also asked why the Government wanted to fix something that was not broke. I think that was the phrase he used. Clearly the system is broke. Social Trends, which was published this morning, shows just how broke.
  Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pond: I shall not give way, as I know that the hon. Gentleman will say that he said "broken" and not broke. The colloquial phrase is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
  Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will realise that when I spoke about people who could not or would not save, I was not referring to pensioners. I simply wanted to put the record straight.
  Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it does not alter my point.
  Social Trends reports that
  "the gap between those with high incomes and those with low incomes grew, particularly during the 1980s."

  539
  During that decade, the incomes of the poorest increased by only one eighth as much as the highest incomes.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the report by the New Policy Institute, which was launched last night and is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, entitled "Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion". It documents the extent of what it calls "Labour's inheritance". It shows that, over the period 1979 to 1996–97, average disposable income rose by almost a third in real terms. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) suggested that the increase in wealth in the nation during those years had been shared by all groups, but the report shows that that was not the case. The poorest tenth saw their disposable income rise by less than half the average increase and at the end of 18 years, they had only £2 a day more to spend.
  Labour inherited a situation in which a quarter of the population, including 4 million children, were stranded on a low income. A further study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that almost one in 20 children go without fresh fruit every day, do not have new and properly fitting shoes or live in damp housing conditions. That is the extent of the challenge faced by the Government. The proposals, including those which we are discussing today, are an extremely effective response to that challenge—to build a fairer and more prosperous society and ensure that all groups share in that growing prosperity.
  The changes represent an important part of an overall strategy, the starting point of which is that, while spending on social security increased sharply under the previous Government, it was a reflection not of social generosity but economic failure.
  Increasing numbers find themselves without work or opportunities and have to claim means-tested benefits to top up declining wages or national insurance benefits. I fully support the welfare-to-work strategy. The new deal will provide opportunities for young people, people with disabilities, lone parents and older unemployed people.
  In my constituency, I recently met a young man who had been given a chance under the new deal to help to build the new district hospital that will serve my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). The young man had been unemployed for some time. He was somewhat demoralised and was rather surly at the interview, but the Employment Service and the employer gave him a chance. Within weeks, he had been promoted to a supervisory position and was a highly valued member of the work force.
  The single gateway is an important next step. At present, claimants are faced with an array of different institutions including the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency, local councils and the Child Support Agency. Providing a single access point to benefits will reduce the confusion that can lead to people losing out on help to which they are entitled and will allow us to provide every claimant with advice, not only on benefit entitlement but on the opportunities that may be available for jobs, training or child care. In most circumstances, people will be required to attend for interview. In my view, that is a fair requirement that should not be treated as a form of compulsion.
  540
  It has always been a condition of receipt of benefit that one completes an application and the condition that one should also attend an interview to seek advice is a reasonable and sensible extension of that principle.
  Another element of the strategy is to ensure that, when people make the transition from welfare to work, they and their families enjoy an improvement in living standards. On Tuesday, we debated the working families tax credit, which will ensure that no working family with children will have an income of less than £190 a week. That is a major step forward in tackling the problem of the working poor, who represent the largest single group among the poor.
  Even more importantly, the national minimum wage will come into effect in April and the Employment Relations Bill, published today, will provide a further element of the strategy to ensure that employment is properly rewarded. I promise that I will not stray beyond the subject of our debate by pointing out that the Bill contains an important new right to parental leave.
  I hope that Ministers will consider ways of allowing parents on low incomes to take advantage of that new right, by making at least part of the leave period subject to payment. I believe that, in any case, it is necessary to consider the consequential changes in income support, family credit and the new working families tax credit that may be necessary to accommodate the introduction of parental leave.
  The strategy also includes changes to national insurance contributions which are directly relevant to our debate and to which several hon. Members have referred. The changes coming into effect in April are welcome. The threshold for employers' contributions will be aligned with the basic tax threshold and employees' contributions are to be made fairer, with the abolition of the 2 per cent. payable on earnings below the lower earnings limit.
  All those changes will make the system fairer but, as some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), have suggested, we need to have a debate about the future of the national insurance contributory principle. It is clear that the principle commands widespread public support, which I endorse, but the system has been badly distorted in recent years.
  The previous Government increased national insurance contributions dramatically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, increasing the standard rate of employee contributions by 50 per cent. By the mid-1990s, national insurance contributions accounted for almost 70 per cent. as much in total revenue as income tax. They had become a hidden but highly regressive form of income tax.
  The changes that are to come into effect in April will certainly help, but I hope that we may go further, perhaps aligning the lower limit for employees' contributions with the basic tax threshold. As the Low Pay Unit has said, it will remain the fact that almost 2.5 million workers earn less than the lower earnings limit and are therefore unable to build up an entitlement to benefits.
  More than 1 million people have more than one job and, even if their total earnings are high enough to bring them above the lower earnings limit, the earnings in either job may not, so the current system may not fit with the flexible labour market. Many employees' earnings fluctuate from week to week, sometimes above the limit

  541
  and sometimes not; they may pay substantial national insurance contributions but never build up an entitlement. Many women are in that position.
  The proposals for increased crediting, to come into effect in April, will help, but I am glad that the Social Security Committee will have an opportunity to consider how the contributory principle might be adapted and whether it fits today's circumstances. My view is that the wide public support for the system is probably justified, but we should review the system's merits and shortcomings.
  Some of the elements in the strategy to tackle poverty are important in the short term; not in the long-term future that many people will not see, but here and now. One such element is the biggest increase in child benefit in history. We must underline the fact that, because of the other changes, the poorest families will benefit from that increase.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's suggestion that we need to have a proper debate in the long term about whether future increases in child benefit should be subject to tax at the higher rates. The Select Committee has been considering that, and we need a genuine, adult debate on the issue, to consider whether an already well-targeted benefit could be targeted even more effectively in the longer term, allowing us to make still further increases in the basic rate.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred, at the other end of the age spectrum, to the Government's plans to provide security in old age. I believe that the proposals in the Green Paper represent a means of providing that security in the long term, especially for the lowest-paid, and I welcome them. The minimum income guarantee offers the more immediate help that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole seemed to think was unavailable. It will help many people on the lowest incomes.
  Many pensioners express a sense of unfairness and feel that they are penalised if they have some small savings or a small occupational pension. All hon. Members will recognise that. I am pleased that the Green Paper says, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed today, that the Government are considering how to alleviate that effect.
  Overall, we have a strategy—part of which has been discussed this afternoon—that will tackle the inequalities that have scarred our society, will be of immediate help to the very poorest and will provide important long-term help.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: It is clear that the Opposition share the Government's objective of seeking to find the right measures to look after and improve the lot of those who cannot look after themselves, and Labour Members' criticisms regarding the previous Government's policies will turn out to be misplaced.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that the previous Government did not achieve the results for which they hoped, since social security expenditure
  542
  doubled in real terms. Since 1992—after black Wednesday, the withdrawal from the ERM and the return to a sensible exchange rate—the economy has been in a recovery cycle. Yet although the growth in social security expenditure has slowed a little, it has continued, in the main, to be faster than the growth in national income.
  I would argue that the previous Government's quite generous measures during a period of substantially rising employment showed their own errors. To a large extent, they were creating many of the problems that they were setting out to solve.
  In reality—behind the rhetoric and the phrases that are aimed at winning votes—what the Government are doing is a continuation of that: they are tweaking, being a little more generous here and producing a bit more means testing. To argue that working families tax credit is not merely a recasting of family credit—paid by the employer, instead of through the Benefits Agency—is semantics.
  Our main criticism of welfare to work has been its inefficiency and the cost of creating jobs. However, the previous Government put in place similar measures, and we understand the principle that such a communications mechanism is necessary. I do not believe that what the Government are doing is a radical departure. It is not the radical rethink that many were expecting, and it is certainly not the radical rethink that its pioneer intended.
  We are seven years into an economic expansion, and the Government are boasting that social security expenditure is not growing as fast as it has been. However, what they are putting in place will result in a pattern similar to that of the past 10 or 12 years, only even worse. Expenditure will rise and, as growth slows, it will rise even more—and the costs will become locked in.
  The principle that the Government are expounding is that subsidising people into work will result in permanently lower unemployment and, therefore, permanently lower social expenditure. That is not the case—it did not happen between 1992 and 1997. The Government can become locked in to the costs. In terms of working families tax credit, there is no reason why people who can draw generous benefits while working for 16 hours a week will work any more hours if they do not want to. The benefits exist, and will go on being drawn.
  The point about means testing, to be blunt, is that someone has to pay for benefits. Over the past 25 years, direct and indirect taxation on ordinary, middle-income families—the great majority of people who pay taxes—has risen substantially. The proposed increase in benefits will make hardly any difference to the standard of living of people whose incomes are broadly average.
  That would be desirable as long as those same people were not the ones who had to pay. It is inherently unfair that people who are in full-time work and bringing up children and who are not entitled to the various means-tested benefits should have to finance other people enjoying the same standard of living. The reaction is quite natural: they do not save more and they do not take part in society's great dynamic of hard work and self-improvement.
  A welfare system that levels everyone up to the average may sound very Christian and nice, but the reaction of the people in the middle of the average—the ones who pay for the system—must be remembered. I do not believe that those people will be willing to keep on paying in the long term.

  543
  The second problem is the familiar one that we live an age in which it has become more common for families to break up and for couples to divorce. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green stressed, the measures introduced by the previous Government and by this Government are increasingly unfriendly to the family. Many professional commentators have observed that, over the past 15 years, it has been the efforts to solve the problem that have to a large extent created it. It is a classic case: make it easier for families to break up, and more will do so; take away the tax and other incentives for families to hold together and, when pressure is exerted, they will break up.
  I am not opposed in principle to the concept of wanting to help women who are abandoned by their husbands and who have children to look after. I very much want to help them: the tragedy of their circumstances is only too evident in the work of the Child Support Agency. However, the problem must also be examined from another angle. If we want society to be satisfactory, with fewer problems, the best prescription remains the age-old one: families should have two parents who are married. All the statistics show that the children of such families are less likely to get into trouble and more likely to have successful careers, and so on. The opposite is equally true.
  Moreover, the benefits of such a family group are felt by the parents as well as by the children. They depend on each other, especially when they get old: if one partner cannot work, the other provides care. I do not believe that most adults want to be alone, without a stable partner, as they go through life.
  There is an argument in favour of tilting the tax and the welfare systems in favour of supporting the traditional family unit. If, with the best intentions in the world, a variety of measures are adopted that are tilted in the other direction, it is not surprising, in a very liberal society, that the family unit starts to break down.
  Ms Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that families come under the most severe strain when parents try to combine work with family life? Far from breaking up families, Government help with child care offers them significant support.
  Mr. Flight: I agree with the hon. Lady that there is added strain if both parents are working. However, although it may be that both parents work because they want to work, the major reason for both parents working is economic. The bill for the rising cost of welfare has been predominantly paid by people in the middle, and their economic response has often been that both parents have worked. Given the point made by the hon. Lady, I must ask her why the Government are making the position worse by virtually driving mothers out to work, even if they do not want to work, by saying that they will get family help and child care assistance only if they work, and that there will be none if they stay at home to look after their children. I cannot see your logic if you believe that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could the hon. Gentleman use the correct parliamentary terms?
  Mr. Flight: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  544
  It is interesting to focus on how the Government have thought about the Green Paper on pensions. It strikes me that a well-intentioned, academic approach based on numbers analysis has been taken. The areas that need to be targeted are identified through proportions and statistics, and the Government seek then to fine-tune measures that will target those problems. That seems a logical way in which to address problems, but it fails to take account of the knock-on effect of those measures, and of human nature.
  It is ironic that one of the great obsessions of the Chancellor, the main architect of social security policy, is the elimination of tax avoidance and tax evasion. One would have thought that he would realise that human nature is such that no individual much wishes to pay more tax than he is legally obliged to pay. The point is to make it absolutely clear where the law falls. The sin is with those who stray into evading taxes.
  At the other end of the spectrum, the more benefits there are, and the more they are structured with means testing and with bells and whistles, the more inevitable it becomes that people will structure their circumstances to obtain the maximum benefit. Equally, it is more likely that they will slip over the edge from actions that are straightforward and honest to actions that may be fraudulent. The classic example—where there has been an explosion of such cases—concerns cohabitation.
  The incentives to be deceitful, including working families tax credit and other recent measures, are becoming ever larger. There is potential for straying across the line of honesty, and that encourages families to break down. I made the point during our recent debate on working families tax credit, but it must be wrong to make it not worth while to have a male partner unless he is earning more than the median wage after he has provided for himself. A tax and welfare structure that leads to that result simply must be wrong when it comes to benefiting children by giving them a two-parent family background in which to grow up.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the abandonment of the insurance principle. That amounts almost to standing Beveridge on its head. I assume that the logic is that we live in an age in which average incomes are much higher and there is no longer a need for universal benefits. If that were so, the welfare state should be increasingly targeted towards those who need some help. There are two objections. First, we must at least be honest. Many of my constituents aged over 50 would say that they have been cheated—that they paid national insurance all their lives but are being told that it was not an insurance scheme and that there are no benefits against it. If any private sector insurance company changed what it was delivering against its insurance contracts, it would be in considerable trouble.
  Mr. Pond: What do the hon. Gentleman's constituents feel about a Government who increased national insurance contributions and then cut significantly the benefits for which they paid, including pensions and unemployment benefit, which was scrapped and replaced by the much less generous jobseeker's allowance? Would his constituents applaud a Government for doing that? What does he say about the Government whom he supported?
  Mr. Flight: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. No Government should fiddle with an insurance system.

  545
  He implicitly criticised the previous Government for that; we implicitly criticise this one for it as well. It is a bad principle. Both Governments fudged the issue, which needs to be brought out into the open to be addressed. If we move towards a system of purely means-tested benefits and roll national insurance into income tax, as some hon. Members suggested, people's willingness to accept, and participate in, that will grow very sour. I repeat my main point: the crucial negative is that the great burden falls on the rump in the middle.
  The pensions Green Paper proposals seek to target defined areas of need, but no one has sat back and considered what the by-products might be. There is a risk that the proposals will lead to a deterioration in private sector pension provision for people in the middle, whether it is companies giving up occupational schemes for stakeholder schemes or the phasing out of group personal pension schemes. I forecast that the net result will be a reduction in overall pension accumulation in the private sector and a reduction in the pension that the ordinary, average person will get. The people at whom the proposals are targeted will benefit, but I believe that insufficient thought has been given in designing the changes to the likely by-products.
  The other key problem is self-employment. The design has not been targeted adequately at the problems of the self-employed. Who are the self-employed? What incentives do they need to make their own pension provision? We can debate that more next week.
  There is an element of Nelson's telescope in this. The Government look through it with one eye to arrive at their conclusion. That may be the blind eye; they have not looked through the other eye—or perhaps through the other end of the telescope—to see what the knock-on effects of their measures will be. In particular, they have not considered the effects on human behaviour. That was the great mistake that we made over the past 10 years. We introduced social security reforms following the same trend. I assure the House that they were well intended, but they created too much of a dependency culture and ballooned the bill without achieving their objective. I am not at all convinced that any major change in policy has taken place that will allow us to break out of the problems. I fear that many of the results will be contrary to the objectives, and that the ballooning in the expense will be much the same as when we were in office.
  With the best of faith, the Government should forget the rhetoric, step back and think about people's reaction to many of their measures. It would be dangerous for Government rhetoric to be smug about the measures that they have introduced. They should think about the negative knock-on effects. My biggest concern is that the lower half of the middle part of society—the dynamic part that will pay for all this—will become even more demotivated to save and not to become part of the dependency culture.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and my very avuncular and hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), have dealt with the general principles and issues very well. I should like to
  546
  follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), who said that a radical reform was needed in the welfare system. I urge the Government to consider three points.
  First, the documents that we are asked to agree today are still based on the pernicious idea that people under the age of 25 can live more cheaply than people over 25. That is wrong. Beer, food and housing cost as much for under-25s as for over-25s. On Monday, the House spent a lot of time discussing the appropriate age for sexual activity. There are different ages at which one can drink, drive or get married, and students of whatever age are deemed to be involved financially with their parents. Thus the whole age thing is muddled, and it is not logical to say that 25-year-olds are different from people of any other age. It is a return to the Victorian idea of leaving money in trust to prevent members of one's family from marrying until they were 35, in the belief that only then would they have the sense to choose correctly. I appreciate that changes cannot be made over night, but I urge the Government to change that.
  Secondly, as others have said, housing benefit is the single greatest obstacle to people taking up work. It must be dealt with more seriously than just introducing a bit of uprating here and there. If we are to enjoy so-called joined-up government in years to come, housing costs must be addressed collectively. Relatively speaking, rents are much higher than in the past and, therefore, benefits are much higher. We should see whether there are other ways to support either the revenue cost or the capital cost of housing.
  Recent research has shown that, if the Treasury gave more support to the capital cost of social housing, it would save much more on benefits for people living in that housing than it spends on construction, and would save money overall. The whole issue of the volume of housing benefit and how it forms a huge obstacle to people taking up work must be addressed.
  Thirdly, the Government should simplify the whole system. It is a long time since I did any mathematics, but one formula in schedule 8 is calculated as (A x B) x C divided by 52—I see no point in having the brackets. That merely illustrates the futility of the effort. If the entire House were to be given an exam on the benefits systems based on that sort of stuff, our performance would be so abysmal that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment would send in Mr. Woodhead and his bunch to sort us out as though we were a low-performing school.
  The whole system is hopelessly overcomplicated. It was invented by very clever people, which is part of the trouble, although it is encouraging to see that even very clever people do not always notice a misprint, with the result that we have an extra document before us today. Even Homer nodded in his proofreading. The trouble with the benefits system is that it is invented by very clever people; it is enacted by somewhat less clever people such as ourselves; it is put into effect by well-meaning people in offices who are totally snowed under and who have great difficulty administering it; and it is all done for the benefit of people many of whom do not understand it at all.
  Changes give rise to an immense amount of work for officials in housing benefit offices. I know that they can feed figures into computers, but the fact is that they have to alter every single person's allowance. Might I suggest

  547
  something simpler, by giving an example of a purely amateur nature, although it might cause ribaldry among the intelligentsia in the far corner?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): There is no one in any corner.
  Mr. Gorrie: There is when viewed from here. Perhaps they are invisible.
  When recalculating a person's benefit, one can either start at the beginning and change every step of the calculation, which is what we are doing today, and reach the answer about 15 calculations later; or one can accept all the existing calculations and simply take everyone's benefit as it stands and increase it by 2 per cent., 3 per cent., or whatever the figure is. The latter method would mean that one would not have to recalculate every single person's benefit; instead, one would simply uprate the benefit. Surely we can apply common sense in that way. Even if my proposal would not work, cleverer people could no doubt produce cleverer solutions.
  The whole system is a disaster because it is far too complicated and an enormous amount of time and money is wasted administering it. I have only short experience as a Member of Parliament, but I served as a councillor for 26 years, during which time I tried to help people to understand the benefits system and attempted to get mistakes made by benefit office officials corrected. Anyone who has any experience of the system knows the trouble caused by its complexity.
  My suggestion is that, instead of making the system intellectually satisfying, we should seriously try to simplify it and turn it into a system that will work simply on the ground. I urge the Government to show real courage, to attack all the silly rules about age, to tackle the problem of housing finance and to sort out the complexity of the whole benefits structure.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Mr. Deputy Speaker, today's debate has been especially interesting, which is due in large part to your judicious decision to allow it to range fairly wide, over all the policy areas that lie behind the uprating orders that are the formal subject of the debate.
  I believe that there is considerable merit in the suggestion made by the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), that Department of Social Security matters might form the basis of an annual debate, thus allowing the DSS to follow the example of other Departments, most notably the Ministry of Defence, which has an annual debate on the defence estimates. That debate gives the House an opportunity to review all the policy issues that flow from those estimates. The hon. Gentleman made that suggestion to the business managers and I am happy to endorse it.
  Another reason why our debate has been extremely interesting is that many of the hon. Members who have contributed to it are past or present members of the Social Security Select Committee, or have otherwise done their homework and put a great deal of thought into the subject. Very few hon. Members, if any, appeared to make a perfunctory political speech for the purpose of throwing slogans across the Chamber.
  548
  The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) suggested that disability living allowance should be extended to children under three. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond to that and all the other serious suggestions and questions that have been voiced this afternoon and will not brush them aside. I look forward to hearing his response.
  The hon. Lady suggested also that, in training Benefits Agency officials, it is important not only to make them vigorous in their work to identify potential fraud or abuse but to ensure that they are sympathetic. The great majority of benefit claimants are extremely honest and the last thing that they want to do is defraud the taxpayer. Some of them may have suffered a major problem such as unemployment or disability, and sympathy is certainly the first quality, although not the only one, that Benefits Agency staff should develop. The agency's culture should be based on that principle.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), in what has become the Liberal Democrats' traditional stance, whatever the subject under discussion, suggested further expenditure. He suggested doubling child benefit for children under five. He wants also to raise capital thresholds. That might go some way to dealing with the perversity and unfairness of means-testing, but it would, first, be expensive and, secondly, I hope that the Government are not under the illusion that raising capital thresholds would remove that perversity and unfairness. It would simply mean that the disincentive to work or save was extended so that it impacts at slightly higher levels of savings.
  Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman implied that increasing capital allowances in line with inflation would be expensive. I should have thought that in real terms it would make no difference.
  Mr. Davies: In his speech, the hon. Gentleman did not—or at least I did not hear him—make the important provision "in line with inflation". Clearly, that would mean that the additional costs would not be great, but equally there would be no real increase in incentives to work and save because, by definition, the hon. Gentleman would not change the real value of the capital threshold, so his proposal would make no contribution to reducing the problems of means-testing.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who was a member of the Select Committee, and who always speaks with considerable knowledge on the subject, gave us an interesting comparison with the German system of social security. It is common ground in the House that we all recognise a debt to the German system. After all, Bismarck first invented a system of social insurance and—I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will appreciate this reference—a visit to Germany by Lloyd George and his adviser, the young William Beveridge, in the early years of this century lay at the root of the Asquith Government's proposals for social insurance, unemployment insurance and old-age pensions.
  The German system was also the inspiration behind many of Beveridge's proposals in his White Papers published during the second world war. We have therefore been drawing lessons from Germany during the past 100 years, and many features of its system may be relevant to us now.

  549
  The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, to whom I have already referred, also followed the Liberal tradition of throwing money at every problem. He suggested that we should increase income support markedly. I hope that I have at least the rough magnitude of the figures correct in my mind. He said that the appropriate level of support for a two-parent, two-children family should be in the order of £160, rather than £120, or so, a week—a considerable increase. He was good enough—of course, he is an expert in the matter, so the point would not have escaped him—to appreciate that that might have a rather devastating effect on work incentives for people whose prospects in the job market might lead to earnings not dissimilar from such an amount. Nevertheless, he made his points with his usual authority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has apologised to me for his absence—his family commitment involving one of his children is the best possible excuse—dealt with the major quandary before the House: what the Prime Minister really meant when he said that he would bring down social security spending. My hon. Friend said that the Prime Minister obviously never meant for one moment what he said, because such a statement is manifestly stupid and unrealisable, and so, in fact, he was basically having the British public on. That seemed a very plausible analysis of this rather strange situation. I shall be returning to that matter because it is of essential importance to the way in which Parliament evaluates the new Government's policy in this area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said that it was impossible to abolish means-testing altogether, and very much endorsed the idea that the essential question, which was raised in an intervention by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is whether one is in favour of increasing means-testing or reducing it. The question is in which direction one goes; it is not one of absolute means-testing or complete abolition. My hon. Friend endorsed the right hon. Gentleman's statement of that important issue, to which I shall also return.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough very importantly drew the attention of the House and the public to the threat that the Government are about to tax child benefit, and to all the damage that that would do. He cited an example of a family living in London on £31,000 a year, whose major breadwinner would pay income tax at a higher rate than someone with no children as a result of such a measure.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) legitimately used her opportunity to take part in the debate to raise a constituency case—that of Mr. Smith—about which we all now know. After all, we are sent to this House by those who elect us, who expect us to stand up for them, especially when a crisis in their lives is exacerbated by their treatment at the hands of the Government. That is precisely Mr. Smith's circumstance. The hon. Lady set out very eloquently, for the benefit of the House, yet one more example—I have a little black book, incidentally, which is gradually filling up with many other examples—of injustice and perversity in the benefits and welfare system.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the injustice suffered by Mr. Smith has
  550
  been experienced by others for some 50 years, yet his Government did nothing to sort it out? I said that we should take this opportunity to look forward to try to put right the injustice of many years. I did not see any evidence of his Government improving Mr. Smith's situation.
  Mr. Davies: They were not my Government; they did not belong to me, they belonged to the Queen. If the hon. Lady means that I was a member of that Government, she is also mistaken. She is perfectly right that such anomalies, perversities and absurdities, which corrupt our benefits system—I use that strong word advisedly—have been present for a long time. The extraordinary thing about that intervention is the hon. Lady's attitude.
  One might have supposed that, if the Labour party took its own rhetoric half seriously, Labour Members would be proud to come to the House, after Labour's great victory at the general election, and say, "Now we are going to put all these evils right." We have not heard that. We have not had a breath of such a suggestion in today's debate or in any other social security debate. All we hear is, "I am afraid that we have been unable to do any better than you lot did." If that is not a pretty pathetic abdication by the new Labour Government, I do not know what is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) rightly put the spotlight on the Government's broken promises. He characterised such promises as the hallmark of the present Government, and he gave us several examples of matters—such as personal equity plans and the state earnings-related pension scheme, which I hope that we shall debate next week—on which the reality of the Government's action has been the exact reverse of Labour's absolutely unambiguous manifesto commitment. Ministers should be very ashamed of that record because, effectively, it amounts to the bamboozling of the British public, and I hope that they are not proud of that achievement.
  I apologise to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) because I made my only absence from the Chamber during his speech, but I did hear him speak with genuine feeling for the disabled. His plea—which I hope will be heard—to the Government was that the replacement for the benefit integrity project, which is to run from April this year, should be humane in its treatment of the great majority of applicants, who will be genuine applicants: fellow citizens who find themselves in difficult circumstances which most of us do not suffer from, and who therefore deserve our respect and sympathy.
  I understand that, when I was momentarily out of the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman said something extremely interesting, which has been reported to me and which, no doubt, will be in Hansard. He referred to the Government's minimum income guarantee for pensioners as a rebranding of income support. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who reported that comment to me, that the hon. Gentleman had used that phrase. I cannot accuse him of plagiarism, because the phrase that I have always used in this context is "a reclassification of income support", but "rebranding" is a much better word to sum up the essential dishonesty of the proposal, which, as presented by the clever PR gurus that the Labour party is so good at employing, apparently is unambiguously good

  551
  news for all state retirement pensioners. In practice, however, it does not mean a penny more for those who do not already qualify for income support.
  Mr. Goggins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I give way to the hon. Gentleman; I hope that he has been quoted to me accurately.
  Mr. Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; it is a pity that he was not present when I spoke, but I ask him to accept that my arguments were as follows. First, I argued that the minimum income guarantee was, importantly, a real increase, in excess of inflation, for the poorest pensioners. Secondly, I said that the supplementary pension and income support have, unfortunately, been seen by many pensioners as a barrier to claiming, because they regard them as stigmatising—as handouts. The fact that we shall now have something called the minimum income guarantee will encourage them to make the claim, and break that barrier. It will mean that they can make the claim without feeling any stigma.
  Mr. Davies: Obviously I did correctly quote the hon. Gentleman's words. The words that he has used in his intervention reinforce my argument. We are told that the fact that there is now something called the minimum income guarantee will change things. We are presented with the wonderful—characteristic—Labour party illusion that a change of name changes the substance. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that one does not change the substance by changing the name, and that the minimum income guarantee is just another version of a means-tested benefit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made the valid point that the Government's purported radicalism in social security is profoundly bogus. If one puts the best interpretation on the measures that they have introduced, working families tax credit is merely an extension of family credit. In our view, it is an ill-conceived and unnecessarily expensive extension of family credit. Nevertheless, it is conceptually an extension of family credit. Welfare-to-work is conceptually an extension of the jobseeker's allowance.
  Credit for the concept of bringing together advice on finding work and the distribution of benefits is rightly due to the last Conservative Administration, although I never suggested then and I do not suggest now that everything that the last Conservative Administration did was for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs made the point that badly needed to be made in the debate—that in speaking about uprating benefits, we must not forget that there is always another side to the balance sheet: the taxpayer must pay for whatever we decide to allocate as welfare benefits. Certain levels of such expenditure will not be socially acceptable.
  To continue the logic of my hon. Friend's argument, I should point out that those of us who care about having an effective and humane welfare system must be careful that we do not cross the line beyond which the payment of welfare ceases to be socially acceptable and therefore politically feasible. In the United States recently that line was crossed, with unfortunate results for the recipients of benefits.
  552
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs highlighted, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, the essential anti-family bias of the Government's attitude towards welfare reform. There is no doubt that if a couple receive more benefit overall if they split up than if they stay together, that is an inducement which may, with successive changes in that direction, become a powerful and even an irresistible inducement for them to split up. That would create the tragic situation in which the welfare system could induce family breakdown.
  Most of us would think that that was tragic, but I am not sure that all members of new Labour would consider it tragic. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) introduced the debate, he produced a devastating quotation from a leading Labour thinker, which suggested that she thought that it was a thoroughly good thing if the welfare system contributed to family breakdown. At least we know where we stand with such people.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), with his background in the Select Committee, knows a lot about the subject, although his speech sounded as though it had been drafted by Labour party headquarters. He said all the right things from the point of view of those on his Front Bench, and I hope that he is suitably rewarded. Of course, it is a classic tradition, not an invention of this Government, to use Back Benchers sometimes to prepare the ground for unpleasant initiatives that the Government plan to spring on the public.
  I was therefore particularly concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks about preparing the ground for the taxation of child benefit. I fear that that rather sinister proposal is being contemplated by the Government.
  Mr. Pond: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that, for some time, there has been a debate in this place about whether it would be sensible for future increases in child benefit to be subject to taxation at the higher rate. That is no revelation; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that in his last Budget statement.
  Members of the Social Security Committee have been having a sensible and adult debate about those issues to see whether that is an option for the future and whether we will be able to provide greater increases in the basic rate of child benefit and target more effectively a benefit that is already well targeted. It is for the Government to decide, one way or the other. There has been no announcement on that.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is good at calling for sensible and adult debate on important matters without explicitly telling the House his view. He hints, but, using a certain amount of common sense, we can glean his view on this matter. He never states it, but I conclude that he is in favour of the taxation of child benefit. I am extremely sorry about that.
  The hon. Gentleman said exactly the same, and used an almost identical phrase, when he talked about the future of the contributory principle and national insurance. Again, he called for a debate. When evidently very loyal and well-directed Back Benchers make such statements at the end of debates, we should all be extremely anxious. What he says today about the taxation of child benefit—or, indeed, about further winding-down of the

  553
  contributory principle and undermining of the national insurance system—may tomorrow be a formal proposal from the Secretary of State.
  A number of important points emerged from the debate, and the most important is that it is absolutely clear that the Government have abandoned their explicit commitment to bring down social security spending. We can argue about whether they ever meant it seriously, or whether they were simply laughing up their sleeve when they said that to British public. I agree with the interpretation of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.
  Whether the Government originally meant what they said or not, and whether the Prime Minister thought that he was being honest or not when he made that commitment, it is clear that the Government have no intention of achieving it, and no prospect of doing so. What do new Labour Members do when they find that they either no longer can or no longer want to fulfil a manifesto commitment? Do they say to the House, "We are sorry, we got it wrong. We have thought again. We won the election on a false bill of goods and we are now telling you that we cannot deliver"? No, they do not.
  New Labour Members come to the House and use every subtle subterfuge in the handbook of the PR gurus to try to divert attention from what is really happening. We had that again this afternoon. The Secretary of State—who is a brilliant man and a past master at this kind of thing—came to the Dispatch Box and talked about shifting welfare expenditure from income support and the jobseeker's allowance to the disabled, pensions and more long-term forms of benefit, as if that had been the commitment the Government had given. It was not; the commitment was to bring down social security spending.
  What the Secretary of State suggested this afternoon may really have been in the Prime Minister's mind. But it could not have been new Labour's commitment for a basic reason: Labour Government's fiscal strategy depended on getting total social security spending down.
  We were told at the election, "You can trust new Labour. We are no longer the spendthrift, mad-dog party that we were back in the 1970s. We will not ruin the country and have the International Monetary Fund in here. We will tell you how we will pay for all our extravagant electoral commitments. We will spend all this money on the national health service and on education, but do not worry. Do not lose any sleep over it. You can trust us. It will not mean crippling taxation, ruin for the country and the IMF coming to take us over again. We shall make savings elsewhere." Where were the savings to be made? In the social security budget.
  If we take away those savings—the aggregate, global reductions in social security spending that Labour promised—the whole fiscal strategy collapses. There are two alternatives. One is that Labour cannot deliver on its health and education promises—and, as we know, it is not delivering on those promises: the NHS is breaking down, and class sizes are increasing. We know the story all too well. Alternatively, Labour will have to return to the agenda of crippling taxation and crippling deficits. This is a key part of the thoroughly bogus strategy with which Labour bamboozled the public and won the last election, and the central column of the edifice has been shattered this afternoon.
  554
  Another important issue has emerged today. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead probably understands social security better than any other Labour Member: he is an expert. He was alone among Front Benchers who joined the DSS after the election in having done his homework and considered the issues thoroughly when in opposition—and, of course, because he knew so much about them he was sacked after a year.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked an important question this afternoon—a question that should put us all into one category or another. It is not "Do we wish to abolish means-testing 100 per cent., or to means-test every benefit", but "Are we moving in one direction or in the other?" Are we committed to the national insurance system, regarding means-testing as an exception—a necessary exception but an expensive one, not merely in terms of public expenditure but, above all, in terms of social and economic costs—or do we want to wind down that contributory system, replacing it with a means-tested society?
  As has been made clear in debates that we have had in the House over several months—if the slightest doubt or ambiguity remained, it would have been dissipated by today's debate—there is a seminal division among hon. Members on this vital subject. The Labour Government are moving towards a means-tested society, while we are proud to be the defenders of the tradition of national insurance.
  Mr. Pond: Was the hon. Gentleman also proud of the fact that his Government were clearly moving in the direction of means-testing, whose extent they doubled?
  Mr. Davies: All these tactics are crafted in Walworth road. One of the principles contained in the handbook that I have not seen—I do not think that I would find it very attractive reading—is that those faced with an awkward statistic should distort it, and that is what has happened this afternoon.
  Before I reply to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I should point out that I am in a poor position either to take credit for the undoubted achievements of the last Administration or to defend what others may consider to have been that Administration's shortcomings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I was not a member of that Administration.
  Nevertheless, I will grapple with the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he is a victim; perhaps he has been bamboozled by the stuff coming out of Walworth road, and is not trying to bamboozle the House. I prefer that charitable interpretation.
  The statistical point that the hon. Member for Gravesham makes reflects the fact that the last Conservative Administration introduced a number of new means-tested benefits, particularly for deprived and disabled people, and greatly extended family credit, which is a means-tested benefit and was a sensible addition to the panoply of instruments available to our welfare system. Of course, that produces a statistical increase in the total proportion of social security spending by way of means-tested benefits. It is emphatically not the same thing as what the Government whom he supports are doing, which is to means-test previously nonmeans-tested benefits.
  That is what the Government have done with bereavement benefit. Widow's benefit, as it used to be called, has been abolished. It is now a new means-tested

  555
  benefit. That is what they have done with incapacity benefit and what they are doing with the minimum income guarantee. Running down the national insurance system, as they are doing, taking non-means-tested benefits and means-testing them is totally different from what the last Conservative Administration did, which was to preserve the national insurance system and to add to it by discreet and targeted additional means-tested benefits. If the hon. Member for Gravesham cannot tell the difference between those entirely different approaches, I am surprised that someone of such intelligence should have managed to spend so long on the Select Committee.
  I have not finished with the Government yet because we cannot allow the debate to conclude without receiving some answers on what is happening with the national insurance recording system computer. The best the Government can ever do is say, "It is all the last lot's fault." It is no good saying, "It wasn't us wot signed the contract." That was roughly the excuse from the Secretary of State. The fact is that problems began to arise when the Labour Government had already been in office for about a year.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Rubbish.
  Mr. Davies: The hon Gentleman may say that, but if I am wrong—if the problems began to manifest themselves earlier than or from May 1997—the point that I am about to make is greatly reinforced: in their first 18 months of office, we heard absolutely nothing from the Government about them. If it were true that, as soon as they came to office, they identified those problems, it was a dereliction of duty on the part of the hon. Gentleman or his predecessor not to come to the House and to say, "We have hit a major problem."
  Had the Minister or his predecessor had the good sense to do so in the summer of 1997, there would have been some credibility in saying, "It's not our fault guy. It's the fault of the last lot," but we heard nothing. There was no statement to the House. We heard nothing until we received the circular letter of last September, when the Secretary of State said that the problems would be solved within two weeks—some two weeks. [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not saying sotto voce that he did not say that, because we have it in writing. We will pass it across the Box to him if he has forgotten the injudicious use of words that he resorted to last September.
  In fact, earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State was not lying when he said, "It is not my fault. It is the people who advised me. I said it on advice." That was the phrase that I heard him use earlier.
  Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No. It is too late to take any more interventions. I have taken a large number, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise.
  For better or for worse—it is no doubt for worse—the Secretary of State is now in charge. He cannot go on like this. He is ultimately responsible for the people who give him advice. If he is receiving such dumb advice, there may be something wrong with his information technology advisers, as well as with Andersen Consulting, which set up the computer.
  556
  If such a problem were to arise in a business, one person would be put in charge. We want to know who really is in charge: is it the Secretary of State or one of his junior Ministers? One would hope that whoever was in charge would spend time knocking heads together; that there would be a precise plan on action to be taken; when it was to be taken and by whom; and that there would be a weekly report on the desk of the Secretary of State about what was going on. If there is such a report, the House deserves to see it. We are dealing with a massive waste of public money and a cause of enormous anxiety to millions of people.
  I endorse the demands of the Liberal Democrats that the estates of pensioners who die before they have received the money that they are entitled to should be fully compensated and that widows who have made the wrong choice between a state retirement pension and widow's benefit because a material fact was not available should be able to change their choice.
  I have another even more important demand. Those who have lost because their SERPS rebates have been underpaid into personal pensions should be put in the financial position that they would have been in had the Government not made the mistake. That is what would happen with pension mis-selling or other abuses or inefficiencies in the private sector. If people have missed the turn in the market because money should have been paid to them in September or October, since when the stock market has appreciated, they should be compensated, as they would be if such a mistake were made by a bank, a stockbroker or an insurance company. I hope that we shall have an assurance on that.
  I have one final point that is of great concern to us all. A Department of Social Security questionnaire is being sent out—I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it is being sent to everyone who currently receives child benefit or only to a selection of people—that clearly lays the basis for the taxation of child benefit. It asks many questions that are irrelevant to the administration of child benefit, including questions about the so-called partner of the recipient. What is the status of the questionnaire? Is there a statutory obligation on the recipient of child benefit to answer it? Will their statutory right to child benefit be withdrawn, as is threatened at the end of the document, if those intrusive questions are left unanswered?
  6.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I was going to start my response by saying that we had had a good, thoughtful, quiet and considered debate on the benefit uprating orders and the welfare reform context that the Government have set for social security. We had, until the contribution of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). He displayed a compassion for the poor that was notably absent from the policies of the Conservatives during 18 years in government.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about means-testing, as though the Labour Government had a runaway policy to abandon the contributory principle and move to means-testing. Let us remind the House what happened when the Conservatives were in power. When they came to power, 16 per cent. of benefits were means-tested. When they left power, 34 per cent. of benefits were

  557
  means-tested. If the hon. Gentleman were doing his job as an Opposition spokesman he would have seen the answer—
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman is making a point that was made by his Back Benches in an intervention to my speech a few moments ago. He was obviously not listening to my response. He is drawing an inference from a statistical fact that comes from the Conservative Government introducing new means-tested benefits, but not running down existing contributory benefits. The difference between us and the Labour Government is that they are means-testing benefits that were previously not means-tested.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that unemployment benefit—a contributory benefit—was withdrawn by the Conservative Government. He might like to look at the video of the part of his speech in which he was running down the record on means-testing of a previous Conservative Government in a way that would attract the sympathy of many of my hon. Friends, and see the expression on the face of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who did not appear to follow his argument point by point.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford should also look at the written answer yesterday from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) showing that it was not just a general move towards means-testing over an 18-year period. In the final four years of the Conservative Government the proportion of the social security budget spent on means-tested benefits increased each year, but it has decreased slightly—by less than 1 per cent.—under Labour.
  To create a myth that the Labour Government are abandoning the contributory principle and moving to means-testing is not supported by the facts. The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts before making a charge.
  In our 1997 election manifesto, we made a pledge to modernise the welfare state. Under the Conservatives social security spending had almost doubled. It had risen by £43,000 million a year in real terms, yet despite that increase inequality and insecurity continued to rise. By 1997 one child in three in Britain was born into a family that depended upon income support and the means-tested benefits to which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford referred.
  The social security system that we inherited is failing the very people it was meant to help. We cannot tolerate the status quo and keep the system as it is. We need to change it for economic, social and moral reasons. Right across government we are committed to change—to tackle the root causes of social exclusion and economic insecurity.
  It is important to be clear about the Government's approach to welfare. Unlike our predecessors, we see welfare as much more than DSS benefits. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) we want a modern, effective welfare state providing a mix of cash and services
  558
  administered nationally by the whole spectrum of Government Departments and locally by statutory, voluntary and private agencies. We see each part of that welfare state as interdependent so that the provision of education, skills and training promotes employability. Over time, investment in jobs and social security will reduce inequalities in health.
  Our approach to the machinery of government, for example, the creation of the social exclusion unit, will tackle the manifestations of social exclusion such as crime and truancy by targeting the available resources where they are most needed
  The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, who I got to know well in the previous Parliament when we were both members of the Select Committee on Health, made the charge that transferring the Contributions Agency will undermine the contributory principle. The decision to transfer the agency to the Inland Revenue is not an attack on the contributory principle; it is a sensible reform that will enable businesses and individuals to sort out their tax and national insurance with a single organisation. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Inland Revenue already collects 95 per cent. of national insurance contributions.
  The hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Grantham and Stamford both waved at the Chamber the Benefits Agency questionnaire on child benefit. The point of that questionnaire is to support the Government's programme and ensure that benefits go to those who are clearly entitled to them. I am surprised that they should make a big issue of our determination and our action to ensure that benefits are properly paid.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood spoke about disability living allowance. I know that she has taken a close interest in that benefit. I would like to associate myself with the tribute that she paid to the staff of the DLA headquarters in her constituency. She welcomed the extension of the higher rate mobility component of DLA to three and four-year-olds and argued that it should perhaps be extended further, to younger children.
  The award of DLA is based on need, and the higher rate mobility component is designed to provide support to those who need assistance to go out and about. Children under the age of three would not normally go out and about without assistance or supervision, so we have responded to the case for reducing the age at which eligibility starts, but we do not think that it would be right to reduce it below the age of three.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend also welcomed our decision to replace the benefit integrity project. She stressed the need to give adequate training to the staff who carry out the reviews. That is one reason why the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Bendel) is wrong to suggest that the Government could simply have torn up the project and replaced it overnight, without ensuring that the replacement works better than the original and that the staff who implement it are properly trained for the job.
  Mr. Rendel: The Minister has entirely misinterpreted what I said, which was that the project, which the Government admitted had failed, should simply have been stopped, and that they could then have introduced a new

  559
  programme when they had done the training. I did not say that a new programme had to start straight away, before the training had been done.
  Mr. Bayley: I find that a disingenuous argument. I should have hoped that the Liberal party would have agreed that it is important to review all benefits to ensure that they are being paid properly. Simply to abandon that for a period would not be helpful. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, whereas the benefit integrity project did not work fairly, we are introducing a system that will be fair because it will enable benefits to be increased as well as reduced. The intention of the project that we inherited from our predecessors was, of course, purely reduction.
  The hon. Gentleman asked how many pensioners we estimated would not get our minimum income guarantee because they would not claim it. It is impossible to answer that, but the Department estimates that at present between 400,000 and 700,000 pensioners who might be entitled to income support do not claim it.
  The hon. Gentleman made several costly spending pledges, which I presume are part of his party leadership bid, so I will not comment on them. More importantly, he mentioned the difficulties with the NIRS project and, quite correctly, laid the blame fairly and squarely at the door of our predecessors. He asked what would happen if a pensioner was found to have been underpaid after that person had died. The answer, simply and straightforwardly, is that the underpayment would be paid to that person's estate under existing departmental procedures.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury on raising issues to do with the orders—unlike the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, who made an engaging speech but did not talk about the orders at all. The hon. Member for Newbury misunderstood what the orders say in relation to families with children on income support. The family premium has been raised so that claimants on income support will receive a full uprating.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) raised the case of her constituent, Mr. Smith. I cannot respond in the House to a particular case, and I must remind my hon. Friend that the self-employed have never been entitled to contributory jobseeker's allowance—or unemployment benefit before that—and that their levels of contributions have reflected that. However, she made an important point about the way in which the nature of society and work has changed in the past decade. That underlines the importance of us reforming the benefits and welfare system so that it responds to present-day needs.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) referred to the contributory principle. The Government have not abandoned the contributory principle. The orders, I would have thought, make that clear, as they include upratings of universal, contributory and means-tested benefits. In some respects, the Government are reinforcing the contributory principle. Our proposal to introduce benefits for widowers is the
  560
  creation of a new contributory benefit. Our decision to link incapacity benefit more closely to national insurance contributions is a reinforcement of a contributory benefit.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: That is twisted.
  Mr. Bayley: It is not twisted—it is a reinforcement of the contributory principle.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The Minister is plumbing new depths—it is extremely worrying. He knows perfectly well that incapacity benefit is now completely means-tested beyond £50 a week, and that the bereavement benefit is means-tested beyond six months for both women and men. It does the House no service to try to disguise those facts.
  Mr. Bayley: We are proposing adjustments to make a fairer system and to target the benefits budget on those who are in greatest need.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to the Acheson report. It is important to tackle poverty, and the Government are doing so. That is reflected by the orders. The introduction of a minimum income guarantee for pensioners is tackling poverty, as is the biggest-ever increase in child benefit. Underlying our policies is the recognition that the best guarantor of security is work, and work is being encouraged by the Government through the working families tax credit. We are making sure that work pays, with the minimum wage, and we are making it easier for people without work, but who want to work, to get work by creating a single gateway to ease the passage off benefits and into work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) made a powerful speech on pensions. He was right to give a hale and hearty welcome to the Government's minimum income guarantee, which will increase the income of a single pensioner on income support by nearly £5 a week, and the income of a couple by more than £7 a week. He raised his concern at the different treatment of the two main types of funeral bonds. That is an important point, and I give an undertaking that the Department will look at it further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham supported the principle that claimants should be required to attend an interview with a personal adviser at the single gateway. That is an important part of the welfare-to-work strategy. It is, as my hon. Friend said, perfectly reasonable, given the existing requirement that claimants supply information by completing application forms. It underlines the point that all citizens, claimants and others, have responsibilities of citizenship as well as rights.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made a good and disarmingly honest speech. He acknowledged that, under this Government, social security expenditure is not rising as fast as it did under the Conservatives. I hope that he will explain that to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, who suggested that this Government would spend £37 billion more on social security. That is simply not the case: the figures for the previous Government's spending do not cover the same period as this Government's triennial review.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: We must be absolutely certain about this matter, and the Secretary of State must allow

  561
  the Under-Secretary to think it through himself. I have a specific question. The Under-Secretary has just said that the figure of £37 billion for the increase in social security spending over the next three years is incorrect. Will he confirm that the Government will not increase social security spending by £37 billion over the next three years?
  Mr. Bayley: No, the figure of £37 billion is not correct. Let me explain the matter to the hon. Gentleman. Under the previous Government, social security spending rose by 4 per cent. per year. Under this Government, it will rise by about 2 per cent. per year.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) made some points about housing benefit. I can tell him that an interdepartmental review of the housing benefit system, of the type that he favours, is under way. He argued that the system should be simpler, but I caution him that a simpler system inevitably will bring rougher justice. I know that he would be the first to complain about the creation of new anomalies. The system cannot be simplified without creating certain further anomalies.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs was sceptical about the new deal and the single gateway. I believe that he and other Opposition Members underestimate the extent to which our thinking has broken with the past. We are investing £4 billion in the new deal to create job opportunities. We have introduced the national minimum wage, which will benefit about 2 million people, most of whom will be women on low wages. Through the working families tax credit, we will ensure that work pays.
  Our strategy is based on the recognition that people who are worn down and written off by a life of social exclusion, to which the previous Government said that there was no alternative, will require active support and help to get back into work and to feel part of society again. That is what our single work focused gateway is intended to provide—a single place where a claimant can get advice on benefits and on finding work, and on how to cross the bridge from benefits to work.
  No longer will great swathes of society be written off when they would prefer to work and when what they need is a helping hand to get work. Our guiding principle of work for those who can work is indeed a break with the past. We treat unemployment as something that can be overcome by promoting employability. We do not agree that unemployment is a sad but inevitable consequence of the economic cycle. The progress with the new deal so far shows that results can be achieved—and achieve results we shall. One of the reasons for the increase in social security under this Government being lower than under our predecessors is that we are enabling more people to get off benefits and into work.
  Our guiding principle is work for those who can work, and security for those who cannot. The second part is firmly rooted in the past, as our uprating orders show. We are providing an extra £1.25 billion for all families with children, and an extra £2.5 billion for the poorest pensioners. By agreeing the uprating orders, the House would agree the largest ever increase in child benefit. For the eldest child, the increase will be £2.95 a week, 45p of which takes account of inflation. The £2.50 remainder is a real-terms increase, and a direct investment that will increase security for families with children.
  562
  The increase this year for a two-child family is greater than all the increases provided by the Conservatives year after year during the previous Parliament. This year's increase—never mind last year's—in child benefit for a single child is more than twice the size of all the increases that the Conservatives made over five years.
  Mr. Leigh: The Minister will therefore want to reassure us that what he is giving with one hand, his friends at the Treasury will not take back with the other.
  Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of what the Chancellor said in the Budget last year. There is no proposal at the moment to tax child benefit.
  There has, perhaps inevitably, been no consensus during our wide-ranging debate, but it is clear, at least to Labour, that we must proceed with the welfare reform debate. We are committed to change, but it must be change rooted in fairness, and it must provide opportunities for people who are currently denied work.
  I hope that the House will welcome the orders. They provide protection and continuing security for claimants, and a record increase for recipients of child benefit, emphasising that the Government put first the needs of children. They also provide the minimum income guarantee for the most vulnerable pensioners, and that will provide a substantial boost to weekly income—almost £5 a week for single pensioners, and £7 a week for couples. They will also add to dignity and security in retirement. I commend the orders to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. Darling.]

  PENSIONS
  Resolved,
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. Darling.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.—[Mr. Darling.]

  COMPANIES
  Resolved,
  That the Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital) (Fees) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 3087), dated 9th December 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.

  563
  That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 3088), dated 9th December 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  POLICE
  Resolved,
  That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice No. 5) Order 1998, dated 8th December 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  Resolved,
  That the draft Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  HMS Glorious
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  6.28 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On the afternoon of 8 June 1940, two German battle cruisers, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, sighted a wisp of smoke on the arctic horizon. Two hours later, the carrier HMS Glorious and her two escorting destroyers, Ardent and Acasta, had been sunk. More than 1,500 lives were lost, qualifying the incident as one of the worst naval disasters of the second world war.
  I have no direct personal link with the tragedy, but some of my constituents do. A cousin of mine was close by, serving as a rating in the escort party to the Norwegian royal family and the diplomatic corps as they embarked for evacuation on HMS Devonshire, which features in the story that I am about to unfold. He was never able to tell me about these events, because he was lost with almost the entire complement of HMS Hood a year later, another tragedy with a similarly massive loss of life.
  My constituent Mr. Sam Farrington lost his brother, who was only 17 when he went down with the Glorious. Another constituent of mine was Captain Nick Barker, who died not long after retiring to Northumberland. He famously commanded HMS Endurance at the time of the Falklands war. He lost his father, Lieutenant Commander Ben Barker, who was in command of HMS Ardent. Nick's son produced a television programme about the event, which appeared in the "Secret History" series on Channel 4.
  Those family members, and others, have written to me from all over the country, and they have convinced me that the official history of the tragedy needs to be revised to take account of what has subsequently come to light.
  For many years, those people have been deeply troubled by the belief that the loss of their loved ones has not been properly explained. No one is looking, after all these years, for blame or retribution, but where a supreme sacrifice has been made on such a scale, the record should surely be as accurate as possible. An unconvincing explanation produced in conditions of war should no longer be given unchallenged official approval.
  The families have aroused the interest of several hon. Members. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is here, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) have all spoken or written to me. The Admiralty, and now the Ministry of Defence, always maintained that the sinkings were merely an unfortunate accident of war. A significant number of naval historians continue to suggest what the few survivors and the relatives have long suspected—that a catalogue of errors and misjudgments culminated in the tragic events of that afternoon.
  On 8 June, HMS Glorious and its two escorting destroyers were heading for Scapa Flow, having left the coast of northern Norway that morning. At about 4 o'clock, two German battle cruisers were spotted on the starboard horizon. Unable to launch its protective aircraft into the wind without turning straight towards the enemy, Glorious sent out her first radio signal at 16.15, fired up

  565
  the boilers, which had been shut down, and slowly increased to full speed in an attempt to run to the south-east.
  Shortly afterwards, one of the battle cruisers opened fire with terrifying accuracy. Following several direct hits, the order to abandon ship was eventually given at about 17.20. Ardent was sunk at 17.28, and at 18.08 Acasta joined her. The bravery of the men of the doomed destroyers was later vividly praised by German crew members from the Scharnhorst. In the programme, one was quoted as saying:
  "Our flags flew at half mast and the whole bridge stood to attention because of the courage of the English sailors".
  Only 41 survivors were picked up after two days in the icy waters.
  Two Members of Parliament who suspected that the sinkings might not have been only another tragic accident of war first expressed disquiet about the explanation for what had happened in this House in the summer of 1940. In 1946, when morale and security were no longer paramount with the war over, Labour MP Richard Stokes asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
  "when the promised report on the loss of H.M.S. "Glorious" and her attendant destroyers will be published.—[Official Report, 8 May 1946; Vol. 422, c. 1050.]
  Pressure was growing in the Admiralty for a full inquiry into the sinking, but in a memorandum that came to light many years later, R. Powell, head of military branch, advised strongly against a detailed investigation. He wrote:
  "A full report at this date would make very dismal reading and would invite Mr. Stokes or other MPs to ask why this or that was not done."
  We are still asking those questions 60 years later.
  The official account given by the Admiralty in Hansard on 8 May 1946 has remained almost unaltered to this day. It has frequently been criticised by naval historians and some naval officers for raising opinion and conjecture to the level of fact and for failing to give an adequate explanation of the main areas of controversy.
  Why was Glorious returning home independently of the main convoy? Why was she so badly prepared? Why was her air power not used even for reconnaissance? Was there not sufficient intelligence about German activity in the region to suggest that Glorious should have been in a much greater state of readiness? Could HMS Devonshire have helped the stricken vessel or did its commander have no idea of what was happening?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I welcome profoundly the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. If they still exist, should not the orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet be made available? That would be important, because the film put the captain in a bad light. I wonder whether that is fair.
  Mr. Beith: Those are among the records that should be readily available to the naval historical branch. The point can be pursued after the debate.
  The list of those who cast doubt on the explanation of the Admiralty and the MOD is distinguished. It is headed by the First Sea Lord of the day, Admiral of the Fleet
  566
  Sir Dudley Pound, who in 1940 questioned whether Glorious was suitably prepared for such an encounter. Aware from survivors that she had no reconnaissance aircraft aloft, no aircraft ready on deck, and no proper lookouts, and that her crew were at only the fourth level of readiness, he wrote in an Admiralty file:
  "Glorious seems to have forgotten that she was a Man o' War"
  —a comment that hardly sits comfortably with the official explanation that the disaster was due to a series of misfortunes rather than errors. A naval historian later wrote:
  "An aircraft carrier not operating her aircraft is one of the most helpless things afloat."
  In 1948, in his history of the second world war, Winston Churchill expressed his doubts about the reason given for HMS Glorious leaving the relative safety of a convoy of ships to head home independently. The official reason, still expressed today, is that the ship needed to return to Britain because she was running low on fuel. Churchill wrote:
  "This explanation is not convincing. The Glorious presumably had enough fuel to steam at the speed of the convoy."
  In 1970, Captain Roskill, who had earlier written the Navy's official and authoritative war history, expressed his view about why Glorious left the convoy. Following preliminary research, he wrote a letter to a senior member of the staff at the Royal Naval Staff College at Greenwich and said:
  "the shortage of fuel theory is bunkum".
  Ten years later and after much more detailed work, he took the debate further in a long article that appeared in The Times. He stated:
  "The answer is distressing. The Admiralty has tried to suppress the truth for 40 years, but it looks as though 1,515 men were killed partly as a result of a whole chain of Admiralty errors".
  The same man, 20 years earlier, had been charged with the responsibility of writing the official history of the Royal Navy.
  The MOD's naval historical branch, apparently unaware that Roskill had changed his mind about what happened, used his official war history as recently as 1997 to support its theory that a lack of fuel was fundamental to Glorious's decision to depart from Norway. There has never been supporting evidence that fuel was the reason for Glorious's independent return from Norway. The arithmetic of Glorious's ton-mile figures would seem to torpedo the MOD's certainty. Furthermore, if a ship is low on fuel—as Glorious was, with up to a third of her boilers shut down—she cannot raise full power and speed in an emergency. She was a lightly armed and thinly armoured second world war carrier, but she should not have proceeded independently. Had she remained under the protection of other warships, she would have been steaming at convoy speed, which would have consumed less fuel.
  The truth may lie in a different direction. HMS Glorious may well have become detached from the greater safety of the convoy because of a serious breakdown in relations among her senior officers. She was an unhappy ship. Her commander, D'Oyly Hughes, was a brave and distinguished veteran of submarine warfare in the 1914–18 war, but he seems to have been unsuited to commanding a carrier. He was ill at ease with the role of air power at sea and seemed unable to work with officers

  567
  experienced in, and responsible for, air operations from his ship. Tensions ran high. After a major dispute he put ashore his Commander, Flying, J.B. Heath, and was preparing to court martial both Heath and Lieutenant Commander Slessor. Lieutenant Commander Slessor had written a despairing letter to his wife saying,
  "J.B. and I are in great trouble. I can't tell you the story but you'll guess the cause of it. It was bound to come sooner or later I suppose, and perhaps it's a good thing. I needn't tell where right lies, nor that my conscience is absolutely clear, but we do need your thoughts and prayers very much."
  That was a message from a man serving on a very unhappy ship.
  Lieutenant Commander Slessor perished in the sinking. Commander Heath was cleared of all charges and continued his distinguished service in other sectors, finishing as Commanding Officer of HMS Heron at Yeovilton.
  In 1968, Commander Le Geyt, one-time captain of the destroyer Diana, wrote in an Admiralty file that he had seen Glorious send a long signal by lamp to her Admiral in Ark Royal asking permission
  "to part company and proceed ahead to Scapa Flow for the purposes of making preparations for the impending courts martial."
  Why would that signal have been sent if fuel was really the reason for Glorious to leave the convoy? D'Oyly Hughes' known state of mind and the implausibility of the fuel theory lend credibility to the alternative explanation.
  In 1978, Sir Harry Hinsley, an historian and vice-chancellor of Cambridge, wrote the official story of British intelligence in world war two. He states that, during the 10 days prior to the Glorious' sinking, Bletchley Park—where, as a young man, he analysed German naval wireless traffic—repeatedly informed the Admiralty that analysis of the traffic indicated that German "main units" were likely to emerge from the Baltic and proceed to Norwegian waters. He tells how that intelligence was ignored and consequently, in his words:
  "The Glorious was caught unprepared".
  In attempting to counter Sir Harry, the MOD's naval historical branch drew attention to what it felt was an inconsistency between his more recent comments and those found in his official history. The NHB pointed to a sentence in that history which reads:
  "It is not difficult to understand the Admiralty's scepticism. Traffic Analysis was an untested technique and one that yielded only broad and inferential clues."
  What the MOD did not draw attention to was Sir Harry's very next sentence, which reads:
  "But … although the evidence of Traffic Analysis was unsupported by other indications, the (Navy's) Operational Intelligence Office had no good reason for resisting Bletchley Park's suggestion that it should at least issue a qualified warning to the Fleet."
  That differs sharply from the MOD's 1997 comment paper, called "Points of Controversy", which asserts:
  "There was no indication from any source that a powerful German squadron was preparing for a sortie."
  That statement is wrong. At this point, we are not arguing about alternative theories; it is a matter of fact, and the comment paper should be corrected on that point. In a letter written shortly before he died last year, Sir Harry wrote:
  "The Admiralty later realised that it had made a mistake".
  568
  Indeed, it was his view that lessons were learnt from the mistake and that much greater attention was given to the results of traffic analysis thereafter, with considerable benefit gained.
  What of events surrounding the incident itself? Glorious sent several signals during the engagement, but the MOD has claimed that, although the nearby HMS Devonshire did pick up one of those signals, it was "garbled", "corrupt" and "almost unintelligible". The Devonshire was under instructions to maintain radio silence. On board were the King of Norway and the Norwegian Cabinet, so there are legitimate questions as to what she could have done to help the stricken vessel. However, that radio silence was broken 12 hours later, when Devonshire checked on an expected escort. More important is that five members of Devonshire's crew have testified that the signals from Glorious were far from unintelligible. Despite differing in the detail, all five were adamant that the signal was sufficiently clear to cause considerable consternation on Devonshire's bridge.
  At 16.25, Devonshire's log states, "Exercised main armament"—the first time that all her 8-in turrets had been exercised in more than a month, and at almost the same time as a petty officer on Devonshire claims that he received an audible signal from Glorious. To man all one's 8-in guns is indicative of a perceived surface threat, as they are not much use against aeroplanes. The official explanation for the exercising of the main armaments has been that it was coincidental to the time of Glorious' signals. That seems too much of a coincidence.
  Similarly odd is that, during her passage of 1,300 miles, Devonshire travelled at almost top speed only once. That occurred within four minutes of Glorious' last signal at 17.19, just before she was sunk, when Devonshire's log states "Increased to 30 knots", which was probably her maximum speed, and for seven minutes "Negative zig-zag". That speed was held for two hours, until she reduced to 26 knots. Why did she accelerate if she found the signal "unintelligible" and—according to the Admiralty—did not even know where Glorious was? Would she not have feared that, by doing so, she was accelerating into danger? The MOD has suggested that the unusual behaviour demonstrated by Devonshire that afternoon was coincidental to Glorious' signals, but it seems more likely that she gleaned sufficient information from a supposedly "almost unintelligible" signal to be worried about something.
  Those who inquire of the MOD what actually happened that afternoon will be sent a paper called "Points of Controversy". The covering letter states that there is
  "sufficient collateral evidence received by this department from key participants to permit reasonable conclusions to be drawn and convincing explanations to be given for the sequence of events."
  I suggest that there are reasonable conclusions and convincing explanations—long advanced by respected naval historians—that are different from those advanced to this day by the MOD.
  Two of the key participants in the covering letter were Fleet Air Arm squadron commanding officers in Ark Royal. One of them, Commander Casson, denies that he was involved in any way in any of the decisions or actions surrounding Glorious's early departure for home or in the subsequent circumstances of her sinking. He was not even asked by the MOD if he could be cited as a key participant, and he expressed surprise when he found out

  569
  that the MOD was using him as a supporting witness. Commander Casson's colleague was no closer to the seat of decision making that day. In short, while both may have valid contributions to make on Fleet Air Arm practice and procedures of the 1940s, neither was involved, directly or indirectly, in what happened.
  One of the other key participants was Stanley Rogers, a telegraphist on Devonshire, who testifies that he heard nearly all of Glorious's enemy report. The MOD, by contrast, claims that the signalman supports its contention that the signal was almost unintelligible. He wrote to the MOD in an effort to set the record straight. The recollections of another key participant, who was also a signalman, are also at variance with the MOD's account.
  The covering letter sent by the MOD also states that official conclusions have been reached following
  "exhaustive analysis of all available records."
  It has subsequently become clear that that really means analysis of all official records—those held by the Admiralty. For example, it does not include the Roskill papers in the Churchill archives in Cambridge, which are a good source of information containing all of Roskill's research into the controversy.
  As well as the First Sea Lord of the day, Winston Churchill, and later, the Navy's official war historian, there are other well-known naval historians such as John Winton, Julian Thompson and Correlli Barnett, who maintain that the official version lacks credibility.
  Mr. John Burnett: Is there any evidence, other than the hearsay evidence provided by the MOD connected with receipts of signals by Devonshire, that the signalling equipment in HMS Glorious was defective?
  Mr. Beith: I know of no such evidence, although there is testimony as to the difficulty of reading some of the signals. However, there is strong evidence that they were far from unintelligible, both in the recollections that I have quoted and the fact that there appears to have been a response by Devonshire to what must have been worrying indications in those signals.
  As I was saying, several well-known naval historians have cast doubt on the official version. They ask other questions that are too numerous to raise in a short debate. I cannot believe that the Ministry of Defence would suggest that it has, in its in-house naval historical branch, a monopoly of competent or credible naval historians, or that they are uniquely qualified to arrive at the true version of what happened.
  I have great respect for the knowledge and diligence of those in the naval historical branch and the care that they have taken in responding to letters from me and in assisting Ministers to do so in the two years that I have been involved in the matter. However, they can be wrong or, as in this case, too zealous in defending conclusions reached in more difficult times with less information than we have now.
  The sinking of HMS Glorious and her escort ships took place almost 60 years ago. Definitive conclusions may never be reached. All the surviving evidence is freely available, yet respected naval historians have consistently
  570
  come to conclusions different from those of the MOD. The few remaining survivors and the relatives of those who were lost, many of whom have written to me, are entitled to an open and public recognition in the official account that there are other viable explanations for what happened.
  It is perverse and harmful to go on defending an explanation in which hardly a knowledgeable person outside the Ministry of Defence believes. I hope that the Minister will tonight recognise the need to put the record straight as far as possible and, in doing so, to give the naval historical branch the brief to consider all relevant records, not just official records.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The House owes a debt to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for raising this subject.
  I shall explain my own locus in this matter, such as it is. As a child, I repeatedly saw Glorious in the Firth of Forth, because she was often based at Rosyth. My parents had friends on the ship. I recollect their extreme distress when it was sunk, since many of the crew who had been with the ship since 1938 or 1939 were on board.
  I ought to declare two other loci. I was taught by the late and wonderful Sir Harry Hinsley, who talked about this matter. I used to go to see him, especially during the Falklands war and afterwards, in the master's lodge of St. John's college, Cambridge. That relationship lasted until he died. I was also a student friend of Tim Slessor who, along with Mr. Harrison, has done so much work on the film. I was very sorry for Captain D'Oyly Hughes's daughter, who was obviously put in a very difficult position over the film, and naturally came to her father's defence.
  I should like to put gently—it is very difficult to be wise after the event—a point made by Tim Slessor, which I have given in writing to the Minister and his advisers:
  "The MOD tries to have it both ways. In the Under Secretary's letters, it claims to have nothing stronger than 'reasonable conclusions' and 'convincing explanations'. In the MOD's 7-page paper 'HMS Glorious—Points of Controversy' it goes much further; it is firm and quite unequivocal in its assertions. For example, on the matter of intelligence available about likely German warship movements into Norwegian waters, the MOD paper claims: 'there was no indication from any source that a powerful German squadron was preparing to sortie, let alone that one had been at sea since 4 June'. This is in direct contradiction to the Official History of British Intelligence (HMSO 1978—page 141) by Sir Harry Hinsley: `A fortnight before the German battle cruisers made their sortie, Bletchley Park began to report to the Admiralty that German main units were preparing to move from the Baltic northwards up the Norwegian coast … The Admiralty had no good reason for resisting the suggestion that it should at least issue a qualified warning to the fleet … Glorious was caught unprepared'. This is many miles from the MOD claim that 'There was no indication from any source'.
  I ought to add that I was also taught by the late Sir Frank Adcock, who was also a decryptor at Bletchley, and who had perfect knowledge of German, which he had studied in Berlin under Williamwitz Nöllendorf. Sir Frank later edited the "Cambridge Ancient History". In his discussions about Bletchley, Adcock again referred to hindsight. I never put Hinsley's and Adcock's accounts together, although Hinsley was sometimes given to exaggeration. I suspect that we cannot regard him as an absolute, definitive source in his recollection of what he did in his youth. If we are to talk of the distant past, we ought to be a little careful.

  571
  Slessor says:
  "Given that John Spellar's letter to Alan Beith (t August 1997) specifically says 'I agree that if any one of these contentions [of which the above is just one] to which the Admiralty and the MOD have consistently adhered could be disproved, then [it] would justify public concern over the handling of the matter [the whole of the official account] from 1946 to the present day".
  In a sense, there is a balance between Sir Harry Hinsley's work and that of the naval historical branch. I do not come to the conclusion that the naval historical branch is necessarily wrong, although the Minister's reply will be of very great interest.
  6.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to hon. Members who have spoken and the rest of the House—although one term almost encapsulates the other—for the state of my voice. I hope that it lasts until the end of my speech.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that we are grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for raising the issue of the loss of HMS Glorious, HMS Ardent and HMS Acasta off the coast of Norway on 8 June 1940. Several issues were raised on which I shall need to write to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope to reply to him on other issues during the debate.
  As we all agree, the tragic loss of the Glorious was one of the greatest disasters suffered by the Royal Navy during the second world war. I am sure that hon. Members would wish to join me in expressing sympathy to the families and loved ones of those lost.
  Over the years since the loss of the Glorious and her escorts, Members of the House have understandably expressed concern over the circumstances surrounding their loss. It is a sensitive issue. It is of genuine interest to the House, and interest has been revived by the recent showing and repeat of the Channel 4 documentary "Secret History"—mentioned by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—about this episode. It may help if I expand further on the background that the right hon. Gentleman has provided.
  The evacuation from Norway, in May 1940, took place at one of the blackest and most confused periods of the war. At that time, the German army had invaded France. British forces, including the Royal Navy, were heavily involved in these operations, which culminated in the fall of France and the evacuation of the British expeditionary force from mainland Europe. Moreover, Italy had just entered the war on the side of the Axis powers and, understandably, the risk of a German invasion was regarded as a serious threat.
  The aircraft carriers Ark Royal and Glorious had sailed from Scapa Flow for Narvik, in Norway, on 31 May. Ark Royal was tasked with providing fighter cover during the withdrawal from Norway. Glorious was tasked with the evacuation of RAF aircraft from Bardufoss in the north of Norway; those aircraft would be urgently required for the defence of the United Kingdom.
  At 03.00 on 8 June, having embarked the RAF Hurricanes and Gladiators, the Glorious, together with the destroyers Ardent and Acasta as anti-submarine escorts, set sail for Scapa Flow.
  572
  At about 16.00, Glorious sighted the mastheads of what we now know were the battle cruisers Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which were on course to close on the Glorious. Ardent was ordered to investigate, and the Glorious altered course to the south. At the same time, orders were given to prepare a Swordfish reconnaissance aircraft, but it was too late, and none were airborne before the Scharnhorst opened fire at 16.31, followed shortly after by the Gneisenau. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, the order to abandon Glorious was given at 17.20. At 17.40 Glorious sank. The Ardent sank at about 17.30. The Acasta, with great gallantry, continued to close with the enemy and succeeded in damaging the Scharnhorst, which was forced to return to Trondheim.
  Understandably, and regrettably, no report of proceedings, or deck logs for May and June 1940 survived the loss of the Glorious—nor, tragically, did any officer or senior rating who was in a position to comment on navigation, operations or command decision making. Any reconstruction or analysis—I believe this would be common ground—is therefore wholly dependent on evidence given to the board of inquiry by relatively junior personnel, and external sources such as signals received during the period under review, the reports of other ships and naval authorities, and recollections of participants. In addition, we now have the unambiguous German records. Nevertheless, the picture is not complete. Inevitably, there are gaps, which cannot be filled, and that has understandably allowed room for speculation to grow about the circumstances of the loss of the vessels.
  Over the years, several points of contention have been raised. I should like to make it clear that we believe that many of those arise entirely from genuine differences of interpretation. What is clear is that, when Glorious detached to return to Scapa Flow, she had already carried out the mission for which she had been despatched—the retrieval of the RAF fighters. She could make no further contribution to the safety of the evacuation convoys, which were the fleet's next main concern. It is also assumed that, after five days at sea off Norway, she had only sufficient fuel to return to base, allowing for the obligatory requirement to maintain a reserve of 33 per cent. The House may be interested to know that that figure has been increased to 60 per cent. for today's royal naval vessels. That is not just because of problems with sludge at the bottom of fuel tanks, although that is a serious consideration.
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Mr. Spellar: The need to maintain stability is another consideration. I asked exactly the questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised. Those are relevant technical matters, and I am satisfied with the answers.
  The assumption has been challenged in recent years but there is no documentary evidence to support the attack on it. What is known is that Glorious had been at sea at considerable distance from base for six full days, and that her normal routine would have allowed her to remain at sea for only five days.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that Glorious had to leave the convoy. At the time of her departure, the convoy had not formed, and if she had remained off the coast of

  573
  Norway waiting for the convoy to form, fuel would certainly have been consumed and could have become an issue. In that event Glorious might not have had enough fuel to reach the United Kingdom and also to retain a prudent margin for emergencies.
  Mr. Beith: Does the Minister know anyone outside the current MOD who believes that part of the theory, bearing in mind that the amount of fuel used on convoy passage at convoy speed would have been less than that required for the vessel to proceed with any hope of safety at a faster speed to make for home with only the destroyer escort?
  Mr. Spellar: As I said, that would also have meant waiting for the convoy, and the possibilities had to be balanced. The question is whether the decisions were honestly made. We have to work on that assumption. There seem to be reasonable grounds for doing so. It is difficult at this distance and with the lack of records, but the assumption seems reasonable, given standard working practice in the Navy at that time, so we should not lightly discard it.
  For reasons that I have explained, it is still considered likely that lack of fuel was a consideration in the decision that Glorious should return to the UK, but it is not possible to state that as a definitive fact. We have agreed that. What I can say is that even if Glorious was low on fuel, she would have been capable of raising full power and speed in an emergency.
  I shall deal with the question whether the Admiralty ignored intelligence warnings about naval activity in the area. Although the right hon. Gentleman draws from the late Professor Sir Harry Hinsley, he does not make it clear that the last warning to be circulated within the Admiralty related to German ships in Norwegian waters being associated with operations in the North sea. A day later, the Glorious and the destroyers were sunk nearly 1,000 miles to the north of the North sea.
  In the letter that Sir Harry wrote shortly before he died last year, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, Sir Harry speculated:
  "I think that the best evidence that the Admiralty later realised it had made a mistake in ignoring my warning lies in the fact that its relations with the naval Section at Bletchley Park changed significantly after the disaster".
  That is an example of conjecture, but it may also have been selectively quoted fact.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) advised me that he had urgent travel arrangements and apologised to the House for the fact that he could not stay until the end of the debate. The quote from Sir Harry Hinsley's "Official History of British Intelligence" compressed quotations that were expanded by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—a page of text is compressed into a few lines. Among those phrases, into which comes a warning of a move from the Baltic into the Skagerrack, is a warning that ships in Norwegian waters may be associated with operations in the North sea.
  I draw the attention of the House to the section which, as we heard, gives a balanced view. Sir Harry Hinsley stated that it was not difficult to understand the
  574
  operational intelligence centre's scepticism that traffic analysis was an untested technique. However, as the right hon. Gentleman commented, Sir Harry stated later in the paragraph that the OIC had no good reason for resisting Bletchley's suggestion that it would issue a qualified warning. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that there is therefore a balance of judgment to be struck. We have to look at both sides, as did the official history.
  Another main issue of speculation, which has been raised in the debate, has been the signals dispatched by Glorious and the role played by HMS Devonshire. It is known that Glorious sent two signals before it sank: the first, "enemy report", at 16.15 hours; the second, an "amplifying report" at 16.40 hours. There are no British records which record the receipt of the first signal. Receipt of the second signal is recorded. It is difficult to conceive that Devonshire would record receipt of the second signal and not the first. It is known that the first signal sent by Glorious was not received by any British vessel, although subsequent records have shown that the full text was recorded by the Gneisenau.
  The text of the second "amplifying signal" was recorded by Devonshire in the admiral's record as "My 16.15. 2P/B". The time of the signal was also given. Unlike the first signal, this signal did not give the position of Glorious, nor was it stated whether the sighting was made from the ship, or if it resulted from an air sortie.
  That signal did not state that the ship was under attack. Records show that the quality of the signal was poor. I suggest that the content, which was discussed on the bridge, may have puzzled the hierarchy on Devonshire, but did not provide information which would give cause for Devonshire to break radio silence.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also raised the question of Captain D'Oyly Hughes and the early departure. The official documentation on that subject consists of one note—by the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet—instructing the Glorious to proceed to Scapa How to conduct the court martial.
  That does not automatically lead to the conclusion that Captain D'Oyly Hughes was responsible for that decision, which had to be approved by Vice-Admiral Wells. I was slightly concerned when the right hon. Gentleman questioned whether all the records were available. As far as I am aware—he should write to me if he has any information to the contrary—all the official records are available, including records from the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was coincidence that the Devonshire exercised its main armament as Glorious was transmitting the "enemy report". I have looked into that as well, and I am advised that that would appear to be so. I understand that, traditionally, the Navy uses the period between 16.00 and 18.00 for what is known as evening quarters, to exercise the gun crews. It might also be worth noting that the cruiser was already at defence watches, with three out of four turrets manned.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether Devonshire would have manned its main armament, because of the prospect of an attack from the air rather than an attack from the sea. I am advised that the 8-in guns of the County class cruisers were designed as dual-purpose weapons, for long-range use against aircraft

  575
  as well as surface ships. The turrets enabled a 70-deg angle of elevation, and rapid rates of slew and elevation, for anti-aircraft use. In the absence of surface ships, German long-range reconnaissance aircraft were the expected threat to the west of Norway.
  There are a number of alternative theories, and we could discuss them and their merits, but I am not sure that that would serve any great purpose. Many of these issues are inevitably matters of interpretation. We believe that there is a sound basis for the interpretation that the Ministry of Defence has put forward, drawn quite properly from departmental records, and supplemented, where appropriate, from personal recollections. The severe loss of life and lack of documentation means that there is no definitive record, and no one is qualified to arrive at a true version. I am satisfied, however, that all Admiralty records relating to the incident are in the public domain.
  Mr. Beith: I think the Minister took to be from me a comment made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the availability of records. I have not questioned the availability of records.
  May I discourage the Minister from going wholly into defensive mode? He has suggested that there is a considerable area for speculation and disagreement.
  The nub of my case is this. The paper "Points of Controversy" suggests that is so, but the text of the official report—which has, however, been slightly revised since it first appeared in Hansard in 1946—does not.
  576
  It would greatly help the families concerned if the area of disagreement, or the potential alternative explanation, were aired more clearly in the document.
  Mr. Spellar: We are satisfied that there has been no cover-up of these tragic events, and that the MOD's interpretation is soundly based. We are satisfied that it is the most likely explanation. As I have said, however, it is a question of interpretation—as we accept, honest interpretation—of different views. The problem is that there is no new evidence on which we can draw to resolve the differences.
  I feel that those who criticise the MOD's interpretation of events should themselves accept that our conclusions have been honestly drawn and rigorously researched. We argued it all through, and also looked at new information, which, in some instances, led to a slight modification of our conclusions.
  We provided the right hon. Gentleman with a detailed and, perhaps, complicated account of the incident in July 1997, which we believe will interest other Members. I shall arrange for it to be placed in the Library. Members who read the record of the debate will gain an impression of its nature, and of the reasons for the position taken by the MOD and the naval historical branch: an honest position that has, I think, stood the test of time.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Seven o ' clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cable Television
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to reply to Wirral Metropolitan Council's request to review the licence given to Cable and Wireless to provide cable television services in the Wirral. [66653]

  Mr. Wills
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions nor my Department has received a request from Wirral Metropolitan Council to review the licence granted on 16 January 1991 to Britannia Cablesystems (Wirral) Limited, (a subsidiary of Cable and Wireless Communications plc).

  Telecommunications (Call Charging)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure that telecommunications companies advertise the rate which they are charging on telephone numbers found in advertisements and say whether callers are being charged whilst held in a queue; and if he will make a statement. [66955]

  Mr. Wills
  The regulation of telecoms operators is a matter for Oftel. Oftel requires all operators to publish their tariffs. In addition, the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) has a Code of Practice under which the costs of calls to Premium Rate Services must be given in advertisements.

  Information given to callers by queuing systems is a matter for businesses running those systems, not the telecoms operators, and Oftel has no powers to regulate how such end users operate their systems. However, Oftel has encouraged the drawing up of a Code of Practice for such businesses which answer calls from the public. This Code recommends that messages on call queuing systems should tell callers when their call has been answered. The callers should then realise that the call is being charged.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to restrict the prices charged by telecommunications companies for their premium rate calls. [66956]

  Mr. Wills
  The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) has responsibility for Premium Rate Services (PRS) in its capacity as the regulator for the Premium Rate Industry. It publishes and enforces a Code of Practice which has provisions limiting the time spent by callers on these services. This has the effect of limiting the cost of calls, and some services are required to be 312
  terminated automatically after a given period. The Code also has provisions limiting the total amount of money spent on certain services.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the regulation of the telecommunications industry's call charges. [66954]

  Mr. Wills
  Oftel sets and is responsible for enforcing the current price controls on the telecommunications industry.

  Competition in the telecommunications industry continues to develop and, while it does, Oftel directly regulates the prices of BT, the dominant provider of telecoms services in the UK. In relation to residential consumers and small businesses, BT is required to reduce its main prices by 4.5 per cent. below the rate of inflation, and to focus this control on protecting the first 80 per cent. of residential customers by bill size. Thus consumers who are on a lower income are protected more formally than those higher spending customers who are more likely to have benefited significantly from deep price cuts in international calls. This price control will remain in place until July 2001.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what transitional support will be available to rural areas upon losing Objective 5b status. [67120]

  Mr. Wills
  The Commission have proposed transitional periods of four years for areas losing Objective 2 and 5b funding. Current Objective 5b covers rural areas. The Government are pressing for equal transitional periods of six years for ex-Objective 2 and 5b areas as for Objective 1. The transitional arrangements for regions losing Objective 5b status will not be known until the new Structural Funds regulations are agreed.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list his Department's responsibilities and policies in relation to genetically-modified crops and the departments with which he liaises on this issue. [67665]

  Mr. Battle
  DTI has no direct responsibility for policy relating to genetically modified crops.

  The Government's over-riding priority is protection of human health and the environment. They also seek to promote conditions which ensure that the UK derives the maximum quality of life and economic benefits from biotechnology. The DTI has responsibility for policy on science and technology. DTI also has responsibility for those industry sectors sponsored by the Department whose competitiveness may be enhanced through biotechnology. In addition, DTI has the lead role in Government on trade issues.

  Policy on biotechnology, including genetically modified crops, is co-ordinated by the Ministerial Group on Biotechnology, as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 October 1998, Official Report, columns 1134–35, which is chaired by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. In addition, officials across Government are in regular contact on biotechnology issues.

  Electricity Supply Market
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the new entrants to the electricity supply market will promote energy efficiency in the domestic sector; [67963]

  (2) what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the liberalised energy market delivers higher energy efficiency in the domestic sector. [67964]

  Mr. Battle
  In the response to consultation on the Green Paper "A Fair Deal for Consumers, Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation", the Government made it clear that Ministers would issue Statutory Guidance on the social and environmental objectives relevant to regulation for each utility sector. Regulators will be placed under a duty to have regard to such guidance in the exercise of their statutory functions. In addition, the Government are exploring, with the energy industry and others, the possibility of using a new standards of performance scheme to promote energy efficiency, and the options for how standards could work in the context of the liberalised energy markets.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with ministers of the German Government concerning the termination of contracts with BNFL for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel; and if he will make a statement. [67706]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 January 1999, Official Report, column 547.

  Fleetwood Power Ltd.
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Fleetwood Power Ltd's application to build a new gas-fired power station. [68572]

  Mr. Byers
  I have decided, after careful consideration of all the relevant factors, that Fleetwood Power's application for a 1,000 MW combined cycle gas turbine power station at Fleetwood should not be granted. The application will be put on hold unless an interested party satisfies me that it should be determined at this stage.

  I have taken this decision in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  The White Paper stated the Government's commitment to electricity market reforms, including reform of the electricity trading arrangements and that until such reforms were substantially completed there would be a stricter power station consents policy with a presumption against the building of new gas-fired generating capacity.

  Decisions on other applications under consideration will be announced in due course.

  Copies of the Press Notice and the decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Electricity Security (Report)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on implementing the recommendations on electricity system security and stability made by the consultants Merz and McLellan in the White Paper, "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government Response to the Fourth and Fifth reports of the Trade and Industry Committee", published in October 1998. [68539]

  Mr. Battle
  In the White Paper, the Government proposed a two-tier approach: an open consultancy group open to all interested parties, and a smaller steering group which would carry out most of the detailed work allocation and progress chasing. The steering group met on 21 December 1998, to discuss its terms of reference, which are set out, and to consider the way forward. The meeting was chaired by my Department: the members of the Steering Group are also listed.

  Terms of reference of Steering Group on Electricity Security and Stability Issues:
  "To monitor the carrying out of the Merz and McLellan recommendations in relation to the security and stability of the England and Wales Electricity Grid as published in the White Paper "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation".
  To report from time to time to an open consultancy group on progress with dealing with these issues.
  To report from time to time to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on progress".

  Members of Steering Group

  Chairman

  Neil Hirst—Deputy Director-General, Energy, DTI

  Members

  Association of Electricity Producers

  Eastern Generation

  Electricity Consumers' Committees Chairmen's Group

  National Grid Company

  NORWEB

  OFFER

  OFGAS

  Scottish Power

  Transco.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the quantities of(a) low, (b) intermediate and (c) high level radioactive waste which will arise from the reprocessing of Swiss irradiated oxide nuclear fuel at Sellafield; what negotiations have been held to date with Swiss authorities concerning the repatriation of the waste; and if Switzerland has indicated whether it would accept its waste to be returned following the application of substitution. [67708]

  Mr. Battle
  BNFL has signed contracts with all four Swiss utilities for the reprocessing of a total of 422 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel. Under the terms of those contracts BNFL has had discussions with each company on the return of wastes, including substitution. I understand that, although Switzerland is still pursuing the development of deep waste disposal facilities, it has almost completed an
  315
  interim storage facility capable of accepting the wastes returned under the terms of the above mentioned contracts, whether as a result of substitution or not.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the report of the Safeguards Office study of the nuclear materials accountancy aspects of the UKAEA report, Dounreay Shaft Inventory will be made public. [68538]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government have today published in full the Safeguards Office review of the nuclear materials accountancy aspects of UKAEA's Dounreay Shaft Inventory report.

  The main findings of the review are as follows. No evidence was found to support suggestions that have been made following the publication of the UKAEA's Dounreay Shaft Inventory (DSI) report that high enriched uranium has been lost from Dounreay, i.e. that it has been stolen, diverted for military purposes or somehow removed from the site using an unidentified route.

  The false impression given by the DSI report that there had been a loss of 170kg U-235 over the period 1 April 1965 to 30 September 1968 was the result of a misinterpretation of 30-year old UKAEA records, arising from a misunderstanding of the nuclear materials accountancy terminology in use at that time.

  If the nuclear material inventories over this period had been taken according to modern nuclear materials accountancy practices, the material unaccounted for (MUF) would have been significantly less than 86 kg U-235. Even a MUF of 86kg U-235, at less than 1 per cent. of the amount of material processed at Dounreay over the period, would be considered acceptable against present day international standards of nuclear materials accountancy.

  Review of the DSI report by nuclear materials accountancy specialists would have provided explanations for and clarifications of information contained in early UKAEA nuclear materials accountancy reports, and thus could have helped avoid the understandable concerns raised by the report as published.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63917]

  Mr. Byers
  Expenditure from centrally-managed budgets on advertising and direct mail where separately identifiable has been £2.18m and £56k respectively. It is not possible to identify a separate figure for public opinion research.

PRIME MINISTER

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what classification is given to the minutes of meetings of the JCC; and if copies are circulated to Liberal Democrat hon. Members of the JCC. [67474]

  The Prime Minister
  Minutes of the JCC are classified according to their content.

  Members of the Committee of course receive the minutes of the meetings of the Committee.

  Loans (Misleading Information)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister what the Government's policy is with regard to employees who are found to have made false or misleading declarations on(a) internal documents and (b) external documents when seeking loans. [67286]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: The Theft Acts 1968 and 1978 apply to employees and other persons alike.

  Overseas Holidays (Costs)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister what total costs borne by the public purse have been for security, administration and other costs related to his overseas holidays since 1 May 1997. [67323]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 9 February 1998, Official Report, column 15.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Queen's Counsel (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set a retirement age for QCs; and if he will make a statement. [67656]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction regarding the age at which Queen's Counsel retire. He has no plans to make a statement.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67842]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has no plans to make White or Green Papers available on floppy disks but all Departmental White and Green Papers are published on the LCD Internet website which allows the visually impaired to increase text size.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Caesarean Births
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list, for each of the last 10 years, the percentage of live births delivered by caesarean section within each health authority in Northern Ireland. [67704]

  Mr. McFall
  The percentage of live births delivered by caesarean section in each Health and Social Services Board area in the years 1992 to 1997 are as follows:

  Health Board

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Eastern

  12.0

  10.2

  14.8

  17.8

  18.5

  20.9

  Northern

  11.6

  12.9

  14.8

  17.2

  16.7

  19.6

  Southern

  12.9

  15.5

  15.0

  16.6

  17.4

  19.2

  Western

  13.0

  12.4

  13.2

  13.3

  14.1

  15.9

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of(a) pensioners, (b) single pensioners and (c) pensioners in couples in Stoke-on-Trent; and what estimate he has made of the number of (i) single pensioners and (ii) pensioners in couples in Stoke-on-Trent who will qualify for the minimum pension guarantee. [67101]

  Mr. Timms
  Figures for the number of pensioners are not available at Local Authority level.

  As at May 1998 (the latest figure) there were 9,100 pensioner benefit units in receipt of Income Support in Stoke-on-Trent of which 7,800 were single pensioners and 1,300 were couples.

  Estimates suggest that approximately 1.5 million pensioners nationally will receive payments from the Minimum Income Guarantee when it is introduced in April 1999. Some 65,000 people not already entitled to Income Support are expected to qualify for the Minimum Income Guarantee. The figures are not available by Local Authority area.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the target times are for the CSA to deal with applications for compensation; and what are the actual times; [67228]

  (2) how many applications for compensation, received by the Child Support Agency before 1 May 1998, are still awaiting determination; [67131]

  (3) what is the average time taken for the CSA to determine applications for compensation; [67227]

  (4) how many applications for compensation received by the Child Support Agency in the last two years have been determined within 30 days. [67132]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.
  318
  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 27 January 1999:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about applications to the Child Support Agency for compensation, normally referred to as special payments.
  I am not able to provide all of the information in the precise format that you have requested, but have provided as much as is available.
  A special payment is considered where a clear and unambiguous error by the Agency has resulted in an actual financial loss to the client which is not recoverable through other means. Each case is carefully considered on its individual merits and depending on the complexity of the case, the length of time required to reach a decision can vary considerably.
  We have a discrete unit to deal with applications for special payments. This ensures that each case receives individual attention and helps achieve fairness and an appropriate standard of consistency in an essentially discretionary scheme.
  The difficulties that we faced as an Agency during our first two years of operations are well documented. We built up a substantial backlog of cases awaiting maintenance assessment, and the accuracy of the assessments we completed was not up to the standard we would hope to achieve. Tackling the backlog of cases awaiting a maintenance assessment and bringing cases up to date has been a major priority for us this year, and the result of this has been an increase in the number of applications for special payments. We recognise that the length of time taken to deal with special payments in some instances has been protracted and we have taken steps to address this over the last twelve months.
  In December 1997 we reorganised the way we handle special payments and streamlined procedures with the aim of resolving special payments more speedily. We set an internal target to clear applications to special payments within 30 working days of receipt. Prior to establishing the new unit, applications were taking in excess of 90 working days to be dealt with. However as we began to clear our backlog of cases the number of applications for special payments rose significantly. From January 1997 to November 1997 we received 2,253 applications and from December 1997 to December 1998 we received 8,080 applications. Initially we were not able to meet the target we had set ourselves of clearance within 30 working days. Between April 1998 and June 1998 the average clearance time was 51 working days. More recently we have improved on our performance and the average clearance time for new applications between October 1998 and December 1998 was 8 working days.
  The number of applications which we received before 1st May 1998 and which are at various stages of action is 410. We expect to have cleared these applications by the end of 1998/99.
  We acknowledge that in the past our basic levels of customer service have been unacceptable and we are sorry that our failings may on occasion have caused inconvenience, frustration, distress and financial hardship.
  We are very conscious of the importance of applications for compensation but the number of applications is small compared with our overall caseload of over 827,000 live and assessed cases. It has risen as a result of the increases in the Agency's current workloads and of our recent actions to clear the backlog of maintenance applications which had accumulated in the Agency during its first 2–3 years. In 1997/98 the Agency cleared 595,000 maintenance applications compared with 357,000 in 1996/97 and reduced the number of maintenance applications over 52 weeks old from 225,000 to 110,000. We recognise that by improving our underlying service and efficiency we can avoid the need for such applications. We expect to clear the rest of the backlog of maintenance applications over 52 weeks old by the end of 1998/99.
  To improve our customer service in other areas we have reviewed the way that we handle complaints and we have increased resources for our Client Helplines and the National Enquiry Line. Also we have extended our hours of opening to cover 8.00am to 8.00pm Monday to Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and carried out trials to greatly improve and increase clients' opportunities to

  319
  secure a face to face service. Through these measures our aim is to deal with clients' problems at an early stage and prevent problems escalating.
  We recognise and have started to address the problems we have in delivering an acceptable level of customer service. Where we discover we have made mistakes or caused delay we will apologise to our clients and do everything we can to put things right as quickly as possible. I recognise that we have a long way to go to remedy our problems fully, but I am confident that our clients will continue to see improvements in the service they receive by the end of 1998/99 and beyond.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Noise-induced Hearing Loss
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters he has received since May 1997 from(a) hon. Members and (b) others on the war disablement pension paid to ex-service men and women suffering from noise induced hearing loss. [67564]

  Mr. Bayley
  Records have been kept since 9 October 1998. Since then 74 letters from hon. Members and 6 letters from other sources have been received.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of abolishing the 20 per cent. threshold for war disablement pensions and gratuities paid to ex-service men and women suffering from noise-induced hearing loss. [67567]

  Mr. Bayley
  The cost would be approximately £250 million.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many ex-service men and women suffering from noise-induced hearing loss have been refused a war disablement pension or gratuity due to their level of disablement being assessed to be below the 20 per cent. threshold in each of the last 10 years. [67478]

  Mr. Bayley
  A War Disablement Pension may be awarded for disablement due to service assessed at 20 per cent. or more. In general a gratuity may be awarded for disablement assessed at less than 20 per cent. However, since 1993, no award has been payable in respect of noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss due to service assessed at less than 20 per cent. This change aligned the War Disablement Pension scheme rules with those under the Industrial Injuries scheme for occupational deafness.

  The number of first claims for noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss, since 1993, with assessments of less than 20 per cent. and where, therefore, no gratuity was payable

  Year

  Number

  1993–94

  39,471

  1994–95

  17,109

  1995–96

  4,341

  1996–97

  3,727

  1997–98

  3,398

  1998–99

  11,369

  1 Up to 31 December 1998

  Source:

  War Pensions Agency

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons funding has not been made available to allow further research into noise-induced hearing loss in respect of war pension claimants; and if he will make a statement. [67361]
  320
  Mr. Bayley
  There is a long standing and proven mechanism in place under the War Pension Scheme to monitor any published scientific evidence which might affect entitlement to a War Pension. The Department does not, therefore, normally fund medical research in this area.

  For noise induced sensorineural hearing loss this process was validated by the expert review of the evidence in 1998, which came to the same conclusions as previously reached by the war pensions medical adviser.

  NIRS2 Computer System
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people received overpayments as a result of the loss of contribution records following the shut down of the NIRS2 computer system; what is the total cost of these overpayments; and what action he proposes in respect of recouping these overpayments; [67638]

  (2) how many people whose national insurance contribution records were lost as a result of the shut down of the NIRS2 computer system, have not yet received those payments due to them which are reliant on contribution records; and what is the total amount in payments which is outstanding. [67637]

  Mr. Timms
  During the NIRS2 Migration period, the period from 19 June 1998 to 13 July 1998 during which the transfer of information from NIRS1 to NIRS2 was completed, no contribution records were lost and therefore no payments are due or outstanding as a consequence.

  It is too early to give an indication of the number of individuals who have been overpaid benefit as a result of the problems with the introduction of NIRS2. However, all claims on which interim or emergency payments have been made will be subject to review once NIRS2 is fully operational which is expected to be April 1999. All overpayments will be considered on their own merits according to the Department's standard procedures.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what date the NIRS2 computer will be fully operational; by what date all contribution records will be restored; and by what date payments reliant on contribution records will be brought up to date. [67639]

  Mr. Timms
  The contractor has advised that the NIRS2 system is expected to be fully operational by April 1999. No contribution records have been lost and as a consequence there is no requirement to restore contribution records.

  Those Age Related Rebate payments that are dependent upon information held on contribution records are expected to be brought up to date by April 1999.

  Contributory Benefits that are paid as a result of information held on National Insurance accounts are expected to be reviewed within a six month period once all the necessary 1997–98 information is held on NIRS2. The Benefits Agency expects to commence work on these reviews in April 1999.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Benefit Integrity Project will cease operation; and if he will make a statement. [68603]
  321
  Mr. Darling
  The Benefit Integrity Project will end on 31 March 1999, to be replaced by a new and fairer system. No new cases will be selected for the project after this date. Cases where action has already started will continue to be processed through the remaining stages of adjudication, including review and appeal, in the normal way.

  We are determined to ensure that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit. However, there is currently no automatic review mechanism within Disability Living Allowance (DLA). Therefore, from April a new system of periodic review will be introduced. It will incorporate the lessons already learned and will be continually evaluated and refined as it develops. Staff involved in the new processes will receive full training before commencing this new work.

  Initially, the new system will exclude DLA recipients whose cases were examined by the Benefit Integrity Project. People with a fixed period award due to end within the next three years will also be excluded. The review process will involve gathering information by postal inquiry and home visits; these methods of approach will be applied across a range of people on all rates and components of DLA contacted to help identify the best means of approach in individual cases. The process will be evaluated after six months of operation and the findings used to continue to improve the process to make it more sensitive to the circumstances of the individual contacted. In addition, we will be testing new ways of gathering evidence in connection with DLA claims. This, plus information from the new review activity, will be used to help shape an active modern service for the future.

  We are already talking to disability groups about ways to ensure the new system is sensitive to people's circumstances, and that it is both fair and effective.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether those widows now over the age of 45 who were widowed before the age of 45 will continue to receive the widow's pension at age 60 following the implementation of his reform proposals; and what will be the basis of the calculation of their pension entitlement. [67674]

  Angela Eagle
  The proposals set out in the consultation document, "Support in Bereavement", would have no effect on current widows.

  A woman who was widowed before age 45 and who is receiving a Widow's Pension on reaching age 60, either because she qualified for a Widow's Pension when her Widowed Mother's Allowance ceased or because she was widowed before April 1988, will be able to continue to receive it up to age 65. Alternatively, she can claim Retirement Pension, in which case her Widow's Pension will be carried forward and paid as Category B pension. It may be paid in combination with any Category A pension to which she is entitled on her own contribution record. But in these cases, the basic pension cannot be more than the full rate for a single person and the SERPS cannot be more than the maximum payable to a single person reaching pension age.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants' Travel
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what were the flight number, date, time and place of departure and destination, class travelled, cost and purpose of each flight by senior civil servants in the course of their duties, including attendance at foreign conferences, symposiums and other meetings, between 1 May 1998 and the present; and what were the total costs of the flights of each of the 10 senior civil servants whose flights cost the most between 1 May 1998 and the present. [67263]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This information is not held centrally for all Departments and could be obtained to only disproportionate cost.

  Buying Agency
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what targets he has set for the Buying Agency for 1999. [68541]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have set the Agency the following targets for 1999.Financial: To generate a return on capital employed of 8 per cent. (excluding costs of restructuring).
  Productivity: To reduce the cost per pound of savings by 2.5 per cent. on 1998 outturn.
  Customer Satisfaction: To raise customer satisfaction by 5 percentage points over the year.

  People's Panel
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he intends to publish results from the second wave of research using the People's Panel; and if he will make a statement. [68540]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government are to publish a White Paper at Easter setting out their vision for public services into the next millennium. The People's Panel has an important part to play in this initiative. By listening to, and learning from, people's views, the Government will be better able to provide the services that people want.

  The second wave of results from the People's Panel covers pubic attitudes to a wide range of public services, with a particular focus on transport, local democracy and complaints handling. I will, tomorrow, place in the Library of the House a copy of the results from this second wave of research.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Local Radio
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to announce the results of his consultation on the restrictions on participation in companies holding local radio multiplex licences; and if he will make a statement. [68537]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government consulted on proposed changes to the restrictions on shareholdings in companies which hold local multiplex licences last
  323
  November. Having reviewed the responses, we accept that there is a clear case for changing the limits at paragraph 11(4) of part III of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 (as amended).

  Although we still need restrictions in the interests of plurality of ownership, and the diversity of content which such plurality can bring, we accept that larger radio groups must be allowed more freedom to invest across the country if digital is to be a success. We must also ensure that local companies have the opportunity to invest in companies or consortia holding local multiplex licences.

  The Government therefore intend to lay an order under paragraph 11(5) of part III of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act (as amended) before Easter. This will allow investors to hold unlimited shareholdings in up to five companies or consortia holding digital licences. In addition we intend to increase the percentage limit on holdings over and above that limit from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent.

  We believe that these changes will address the needs of all parts of the radio industry—both larger radio groups and those companies wishing to make small but meaningful investments in a wide range of digital licences. We will look very closely at the effects of the revised restrictions as more multiplex licences are advertised by the Radio Authority.

  Listed Buildings (Ecclesiastical Exemption)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building and conservation area controls. [68601]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have now completed a programme of discussions with denominations and other organisations to consider the recommendations in Mr. John Newman's review of the exemption. I am today placing in the Libraries of the House a document which gives details of the changes in denominations' procedures agreed in the course of the discussions. Copies will be circulated to interested bodies.

  Against this background my right hon. Friend and I are satisfied that the six denominations which currently enjoy the ecclesiastical exemption should retain it for the time being. This includes the Baptist Union, which Mr. Newman recommended should be the subject of a further review after a year and whose internal procedures have therefore been re-examined by the two Departments. We would envisage a further review of the exemption regime as a whole during the life of this Parliament. Meanwhile we look to the denominations to keep up the momentum of change as required and expect to see substantive progress in all areas where the need for further work has been identified.

  We have also reviewed the position regarding the various categories of building (such as those within Church of England peculiars) which at the time of the 1994 reform were outside the scope of the relevant denomination's own procedures and which retained exemption on an interim basis pending satisfactory long-term arrangements. Action is in hand within the
  324
  denominations to establish such arrangements and the Government want to see these brought fully into effect as a matter of urgency. The Government aim shortly to consult on a draft amendment to the Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994, the effect of which will be to remove the exemption from any ecclesiastical building not fully covered by an appropriate control procedure and place it under normal secular controls.

  The booklet "The Ecclesiastical Exemption—What it is and how it works" will be revised to take account of these developments and reissued during 1999.

HEALTH

  Weighted Capitation Formula
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority the average wage according to the market forces staff factor of the weighted capitation formula. [66095]

  Mr. Denham
  The table gives average wages for health authorities compiled from the source data used to calculate the staff market forces factor.

  In calculating the staff market forces factor, the data are adjusted in two ways. First, to isolate the effect of geographical location from other factors, for example gender and occupation; and secondly, to reflect the location of the National Health Service trusts from which the health authorities commission their services.

  There is to be a wide ranging review of the formula used to make cash allocations to health authorities and primary care groups.

  £

  Health authority

  Average wage over three years, 1995–97

  East London and the City

  501.61

  Camden and Islington

  482.56

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  478.61

  Bedfordshire

  464.66

  Hillingdon

  461.94

  Brent and Harrow

  438.73

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  429.58

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  427.70

  Berkshire

  419.20

  Kingston and Richmond

  414.94

  East Surrey

  409.65

  West Surrey

  409.65

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  386.31

  Buckinghamshire

  384.60

  East and North Hertfordshire

  379.81

  West Hertfordshire

  379.81

  Croydon

  365.90

  West Sussex

  362.08

  Bexley and Greenwich

  360.84

  Barking and Havering

  358.55

  Enfield and Haringey

  356.07

  Wiltshire

  351.05

  North Cheshire

  350.53

  South Cheshire

  350.53

  Stockport

  350.53

  North and Mid Hampshire

  347.66

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  347.66

  325

  £

  Health authority

  Average wage over three years, 1995–97

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  347.66

  North Essex

  346.19

  South Essex

  346.19

  Oxfordshire

  346.03

  Gloucestershire

  346.03

  Avon

  345.87

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  345.53

  Barnet

  342.43

  Bromley

  335.10

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  331.72

  Birmingham

  328.68

  Dudley

  328.68

  Sandwell

  328.68

  Solihull

  328.68

  Walsall

  328.68

  Wolverhampton

  328.68

  Northamptonshire

  327.09

  East Kent

  326.59

  West Kent

  326.59

  Coventry

  326.43

  Warwickshire

  326.43

  Tees

  324.84

  Manchester

  323.67

  Salford and Trafford

  323.67

  West Pennine

  323.67

  Liverpool

  320.66

  Sefton

  320.66

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  320.66

  Wirral

  320.66

  Dorset

  317.94

  North Derbyshire

  317.08

  South Derbyshire

  317.08

  Leicestershire

  314.54

  Bradford

  312.95

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  312.95

  Leeds

  312.95

  Wakefield

  312.95

  East Riding

  309.49

  South Humber

  309.49

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  306.20

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  306.20

  Sunderland

  306.20

  Bury and Rochdale

  305.37

  East Lancashire

  305.37

  North West Lancashire

  305.37

  South Lancashire

  305.37

  Wigan and Bolton

  305.37

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  304.99

  Suffolk

  304.31

  North Nottinghamshire

  303.21

  Nottingham

  303.21

  Somerset

  302.94

  North Yorkshire

  298.71

  North Cumbria

  298.54

  Morecambe Bay

  298.54

  North Staffordshire

  297.84

  South Staffordshire

  297.84

  East Norfolk

  297.35

  North West Anglia

  297.35

  Lincolnshire

  297.26

  Barnsley

  295.99

  Doncaster

  295.99

  Rotherham

  295.99

  Sheffield

  295.99

  Herefordshire

  295.69

  Worcestershire

  295.69

  County Durham

  294.87

  Shropshire

  289.21

  Northumberland

  282.57

  North and East Devon

  282.30

  326

  £

  Health authority

  Average wage over three years, 1995–97

  South and West Devon

  282.30

  Isle of Wight

  281.71

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  260.86

  Notes:

  1. The figures are derived from the New Earnings Survey Panel Data Set supplied by the Office for National Statistics, rearranged by health authority area. They represent gross weekly earnings of full-time employees aged 16 to 70 in the private sector whose pay was not affected by absence.

  2. The three year average is used to be consistent with the convention used when calculating the staff market forces factor.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67840]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 296.

  As the Department responsible for health issues, we aim to make our documents available to the widest possible audiences. The Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", included versions in Braille, audio tape and large print and the Social Services White Paper versions in Braille and audio tape.

  Texts of Green and White Papers are also available on The Stationery Office website, which many people with less severe visual impairments find very convenient, since they can adjust their own browser software to as large a type as they require.

  It has not been our usual practice to offer texts on floppy disks because there has not been significant demand. Availability of texts via the internet may now be satisfying that demand but, if we receive an ad-hoc request for a text on disk, we are happy to produce and supply it.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to review the list of exemptions from prescription charges; [66066]

  (2) what plans he has to review the operation of exemptions from prescription charges; and if he will make a statement. [66067]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The current prescription charge exemption arrangements were reviewed as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. Following the Review, all current prescription charge exemptions will be protected for the rest of the Parliament and existing patient charges will rise by no more than the rate of inflation over the next three years.

  Caesarean Births
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each of the last 10 years, the percentage of live births delivered by caesarean section within each health authority in England. [67673]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about emergency and total caesarean deliveries by hospital/trust for 1989–90 to 1994–95 is contained in table 31 of the Statistical bulletin "NHS Maternity Statistics 1989–90 to 1994–95". Copies of the bulletin are available in the Library. It is planned to publish a further bulletin with more up to date information in spring 1999. Information about live births delivered by caesarean section within each health authority could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  NHS Budget
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the total NHS budget(a) in 1996–97 and (b) 2000–01, in 1998–99 prices. [66525]

  Mr. Denham
  The total National Health Service budget in 1998–99 prices for the years 1996–97 and 2000–01 is contained in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Adjusted to 1998–99 prices

  1996–97

  34,749

  2000–01

  40,375

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between the Ministry of Defence and the NHS on the planned closure of the Royal Hospital, Haslar; and what plans he has to ensure the maintenance of hospital provision on the Gosport Peninsular. [68073]

  Mr. Denham
  Following the Strategic Defence Review, the Ministry of Defence decided to close Royal Hospital, Haslar. The local health authority will now be exploring with Royal Hospital, Haslar and colleagues in the Defence Secondary Care Agency the options for the provision of the most effective healthcare for the local population. In the meantime the Ministry of Defence has made a commitment to maintain the service currently provided by Royal Hospital, Haslar until 2002 at the earliest.

  Correspondence
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Solihull to ministers in his Department dated 19 November and 16 September 1998. [67975]

  Ms Jowell
  My noble Friend, the Baroness Hayman, replied to the hon. Member on 26 January 1999.

DEFENCE

  Defence Military Assistance Fund (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) of 16 December 1998,Official Report, columns 526–28, if he will provide a breakdown of the expenditure under the Defence Military Assistance Fund relating to Indonesia in each of the last three years, indicating separately the amounts used to support defence sales. [66623]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The total committed expenditure for Indonesia under the Defence Military Assistance Fund, DMAF, for the last two years, and the cost of assistance waived under its predecessors, the Defence Policy Fund and the Defence Sales Fund, is as follows:

  1995–1996
  £691,880 total, of which £583,000 was committed to support of defence exports

  1996–1997
  £1,675,280, of which £1,629,080 was committed to support of defence exports

  1997–1998
  £62,400, of which £19,700 was committed to support of defence exports.

  Portsmouth Dockyard (Service Personnel)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel, and at what ranks, are currently attached to(a) HMS Ark Royal and (b) HMS Intrepid in Portsmouth Dockyard; and at what annual cost per ship. [67248]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 27 January 1999,Official Report, columns 265–66.

  Chapelcross and Calder Hall Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his forecast for the longevity of the tritium production facility at Chapelcross; [67210]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with BNFL about extending the life of the Chapelcross and Calder Hall reactors; and if he will make a statement. [67209]

  Mr. Spellar
  The productive life of Chapelcross is a matter for BNFL, subject to its meeting the relevant regulatory requirements of the independent regulator, the Health and Safety Executive HSE. I understand, however, that in 1996 the HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate agreed that the reactors could continue to operate for another ten years from 1998, up to a potential age of 50. This agreement was subject to satisfactory results from the normal programme of inspections and some work being undertaken to plant and procedures which was already planned and being implemented.

  The Ministry of Defence is currently in the very early stages of discussions with BNFL about the prospects for a further extension of the life of Chapelcross beyond the period quoted.
  329
  The Ministry of Defence has had no links with Calder Hall since it was put under IAEA Safeguards in August 1996.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report arising out of the review into CS gas holdings. [67649]

  Mr. Spellar
  The review includes a substantial amount of material the disclosure of which would be harmful to defence, national security or international relations. I am, therefore, withholding the review material in accordance with the terms of Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  CR Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 657, regarding CR gas, if he will list the (a) dates and (b) circumstances of each occasion on which the possible use of CR gas by the armed forces was authorised following a request for assistance for law enforcement purposes from the civil power. [67629]

  Mr. Spellar
  The use of CR gas has been authorised on two instances in the past two years where the Armed Forces have responded to a request for assistance for law enforcement purposes from the civil power. I am withholding the details of the circumstances in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  CDB Technical Notes (Unclassified Reports)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the unclassified reports in the CDB Technical Notes series. [67600]

  Mr. Spellar
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the CDB Technical Notes series which was started in April 1995 when the then Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment became part of DERA. Since that date 13 unclassified technical reports have been produced.

  I have made arrangements for a list of the titles to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Air Strikes (Iraq)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium shells were used in the air strikes by Britain and the USA on Iraq in December. [67453]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No depleted uranium based ammunition was used by US or UK forces during Operation Desert Fox.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67837]
  330
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, yesterday, 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 296.

  In my Department we currently aim to meet requests on demand for the production of departmental documents in alternative formats such as floppy disk for the benefit of those with a visual impairment whenever it is reasonable to do so.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the operating costs for 101 Battalion REME based at Queensferry for the next five years. [68153]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 656.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the interval of time between the decision to move 101 Battalion REME from Chorley Barracks to Queensferry and the announcement of the future structure of the Territorial Army on 17 November 1998. [68112]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 164.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1998,Official Report, column 450, what definition of South Lancashire his Department uses. [68159]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  For the purpose of the question to which my hon. Friend refers, the definition used was the area of the county covered by the Lancashire South European Constituency.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the cost of the transfer of computer equipment from Chorley to Queensferry 101 Battalion Headquarters. [68155]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No such details are available at this time.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the additional travelling costs that will be incurred by detachments travelling to Queensferry instead of Chorley when the 101 Battalion is transferred. [68156]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We anticipate that any increase in travelling costs incurred by units in Manchester and Grangemouth travelling to Queensferry, will be offset by reductions in such cost incurred by units travelling from Prestatyn and Coventry.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Cadet Force in Chorley. [68158]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department is still assessing the options for the Cadet Force in Chorley. I can confirm that any Cadets, whose current accommodation is affected by the restructuring of the Territorial Army, will not be obliged to move until suitable alternative accommodation has been provided.
  331
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Territorial Army centres which he had planned to close or transfer as part of the Strategic Defence Review but which will now remain open; and if he will make a statement. [68072]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Of the Territorial Army Centres that we announced on 17 November 1998 were to close or transfer as part of the Strategic Defence Review none are now to remain open.

  101 Battalion REME (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 656, on REME (Chorley), if he will set out the basis of his estimate of 25 per cent. saving in operating the 101 Battalion REME out of Queensferry instead of Chorley. [68154]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The assessment has been made on the basis of a comparison of the estimated running and maintenance costs of the two sites.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times Exemption 2 in the Code of Practice on access to Government information was used by his Department in replying to parliamentary questions to justify withholding information in the last 12 months. [681601

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Of 2,731 questions answered by all Ministers in this Department in the year ending 22 January 1999, some or all of the information requested was withheld under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Internal discussions and advice) on 13 occasions.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Safety (Mobile Telephones)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of accidents caused by drivers being distracted by mobile telephones in each of the last five years. [65487]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information on the number of accidents caused by drivers or other road users being distracted by mobile phones is not collected because of the difficulty of establishing exactly when a road traffic accident took place and whether a mobile phone was in use at the time. However, my Department is aware of a number of media reports over the last few years of road fatalities where the use of a mobile phone was alleged to be a factor.

  We continue to warn of the dangers of using a mobile phone while driving. The Transport Research Laboratory report "The use of mobile phones while Driving: a review" shows that hand held mobile phones are inappropriate for use while driving and even hands-free mobile phones cause distraction from the driving task.

  Local Deprivation Indicators
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which measures of local deprivation his Department and its agencies use in considering allocation of funds to local projects. [66717]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department allocates funds for a range of local projects, but usually through third parties such as local authorities. In making allocations to local level we use local deprivation indices appropriate to the expenditure concerned. The main ones are:Housing—the annual allocation of housing capital resources to local authorities (apart from private sector renewal and disabled facilities grants) and registered social landlords uses Needs Indices which involve an element of targeting to areas of high deprivation as measured by the Index of Local Conditions.
  Regeneration—the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation is used to target regeneration funds on the most deprived areas in England.
  Rural Regeneration—funding provided through the rural regeneration programmes currently operated by the Rural Development Commission is targeted on the priority Rural Development Areas. These areas were designated in 1994 using a specific set of indicators to identify the key economic and social problems facing rural communities in England.
  Local Government—the allocation of revenue support grants to local authorities is governed by formulae which include a number of measures of social and economic deprivation. The details are set out in The Local Government Finance Reports for each year, as approved by the House.
  European Structural Funds—the Department manages the English Objective 1,2 and 5b Structural Funds Programmes. The programme areas eligible to receive Structural Funds are determined by socio-economic factors which include measures of deprivation. However, measures of local deprivation are not used by this Department when considering the allocation of funds to specific local projects within Objective 1, 2 and 5b areas.

  Lorries (Illegal Operation)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 1.43 of the White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", what additional measures he proposes for the impounding of illegally operating lorries. [67615]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 25 January 19991: We remain committed to introducing a scheme for the impounding of illegally operated heavy goods vehicles. The consultation exercise carried out last year showed that there was overwhelming support for such a scheme. We believe that detaining illegally operated heavy goods vehicles would provide an effective sanction against unlicensed operators by preventing them from continuing to operate and by acting as a deterrent to discourage other hauliers from ignoring the laws on operator licensing.

  Pesticides Tax (Hazard Scoring)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on hazard scoring with regard to the taxing of pesticides. [67715]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have been exploring the possibility of introducing a pesticide tax as a component of its pesticide minimisation policy. As part of this work, consideration has been given to the relative environmental hazard of the active ingredients contained in different pesticides.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many man hours are spent by officials at the Health and Safety Executive on monitoring and enforcing the regulations and guidelines covering genetically modified organisms; what estimate he has made of the expected growth in this amount of working time should the United Kingdom allow the expansion to commercial growing; and what is his estimate of the costs involved. [67753]

  Mr. Meale
  The regulations and guidelines in Great Britain covering genetically modified organisms can be divided into those covering deliberate releases (typically the controlled growing of crops on designated sites) and those covering contained use (typically developmental work involving organisms, animals and plants in laboratories or glass houses).

  The Health and Safety Executive inspects and enforces the regulations covering the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms under an agency agreement with the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR). In the current working year, 888 hours (120 days or 0.57 person/years) are allocated for inspection and enforcement.

  For contained use, in the current year, 1,665 hours (225 days or 1.07 person/years) are allocated for inspection and enforcement. Contained use work will not be affected by any expansion in commercial growing.

  If the UK proceeds to commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops, the resources will be increased proportionally to take into account any additional inspection and enforcement duties.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his Department's responsibilities and policies in relation to genetically-modified crops and the departments with which he liaises on this issue. [67664]

  Mr. Meale
  DETR has responsibility in England for all issues concerned with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which may affect the environment and is responsible for reviewing all environmental risk assessments in respect of GM crops.

  DETR has lead responsibility for the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, as amended, which in conjunction with Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the European Communities Act 1972, give effect to Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically Modified Organisms, as amended by Commission Directive 97/35/EC.

  DETR is lead competent authority for the purposes of EC Directive 90/220/EEC and in the wider international field has lead responsibility for taking forward the UK line in the negotiation of a Biosafety Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) specialist inspectors enforce those sections of Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and associated Regulations, which concern deliberate release of GMOs
  334
  into the environment. The enforcement is undertaken on behalf of the Secretary of State and is under the terms of an Agency Agreement.

  The human safety aspects of the contained use of genetically modified crops are covered by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992, as amended. HSE is responsible for and enforces those Regulations. Environmental aspects are covered by Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and associated Regulations—the Genetically Modified Organisms (Risk Assessment) (Records and Exemptions) Regulations 1996, as amended in 1997—for which DETR is responsible. HSE specialist inspectors enforce that legislation on behalf of DETR under an Agency Agreement.

  Arrangements between Departments on the control and regulation of the contained use and deliberate release of GMOs is covered by a Memorandum of Understanding between DETR, HSE, MAFF, Scottish Office and Welsh Office and by an agreement between DETR and DOE(NI). Policy on biotechnology, including genetically modified crops, is co-ordinated by the Ministerial Group on Biotechnology, as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 October 1998, Official Report, columns 1134–35, which is chaired by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. In addition, officials across Government are in regular contact on biotechnology issues.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the terms of reference of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment were last reviewed. [68061]

  Mr. Meale
  The terms of reference of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) have not changed since the committee was established in 1993. The remit of the committee was last reviewed and changed in October 1998 when the Secretary of State asked ACRE in future to advise not only on the direct and indirect effects of genetically modified organisms in the environment but on the possible changes in agronomic practice and subsequent effects on biodiversity.

  Road Accidents (Motorway Tuition)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the effect on the number of accidents and injuries of making compulsory some form of motorway tuition; and if he will make a statement. [67736]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since it would not be practicable to make motorway tuition compulsory because many learner drivers are not within reasonable distance of a motorway, we have made no detailed assessment of the likely impact. However, Transport Research Laboratory research1 based on a large sample of drivers who passed their test in 1988 and 1989 estimates that the accident rate for male drivers in their first three years of driving is about four accidents per million miles on motorways compared to over 18 on major roads away from town centres and over 24 on quiet country or rural roads.

  Changes to the practical driving test have been announced which will take effect in the Spring. The test will be longer to allow candidates to be assessed in situations more representative of modern driving

  335
  conditions, including higher-speed roads. That will mean that their training will have to equip them to meet those conditions.

  Source:
  1 TRL Project Report 111. Cohort study of learner and novice drivers: Part 3, Accidents, offences and driving experience in the first three years of driving.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the occasions on which he has taken an RAF flight since May 1997; and for what purpose; [67413]

  (2) if he will list the occasions on which he has used a helicopter at public expense since May 1997; and for what purpose. [67415]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: I refer to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, on 19 November 1998, Official Report, columns 838–39, and 27 November 1998, Official Report, column 41. The RAF flights undertaken by me personally were those on 3 May and 23 July 1997 and 22 January, 23 March, 16 and 22 August and 26 September 1998. Of those, the flight on 3 May 1997 was made by helicopter, as were parts of the journeys from Belfast to Omagh and return on 16 and 22 August 1998. In addition I have made helicopter trips on 14 July 1998 to the opening of Capital One Bank in Nottingham, and on 7 October 1998 on a tour of emergency towing vessels as part of the launch of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the financial cost to the packing industry of complying with EU law relating to recoverable packaging waste. [67682]

  Mr. Meale
  An assessment of the cost implications of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, which implement the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EC) was published when the Regulations came into force in March 1997. This assessment will be updated when measures to amend the Regulations are introduced in due course.

  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of his review of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) regulations 1997. [68346]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have considered the conclusions of the Advisory Committee on Packaging as set out in Sir Peter Parker's letters to me of 24 June and 22 December 1998, together with the other representations that were made to me in the course of the review. Subject to Parliamentary approval and, in the case of certain matters, the conclusion of the period for consulting European Union colleagues, I propose to make a number of changes to the Regulations as follows. As these changes are intended to take effect this year, I will introduce measures as soon as possible.
  336
  (i) The recovery and recycling targets will be increased in 1999 and 2000 as follows:

  Percentage

  1999

  2000

  Recovery

  43

  45

  Material-specific recycling

  10

  13

  Recovery and recycling targets for 2001 will remain unchanged for now, at 52 per cent. recovery and 16 per cent. recycling, in effect, the Directive targets. I will keep these under review in light of further information, including the development of the new Waste Strategy for England and Wales, further work by the Department on packaging data and data returns from businesses and compliance schemes to the Agencies in 1999.

  (ii) The Regulations provide that the financial turnover threshold falls from the present £5 million to £1 million in 2000. However, I have concluded that businesses with a financial turnover of between £1 million and £2 million are unlikely to be handling significant quantities of packaging and so, in 2000, only those businesses who have a financial turnover of more than £2 million will come within the scope of the Regulations.

  (iii) Currently, the Regulations provide for "wholesalers" to take on the selling obligation for the small retailers that they supply. The Advisory Committee noted that removing this obligation would significantly simplify the obligation on wholesaling businesses, who, in any case, have obligations for the activities they perform on packaging. I consider that the removal of the "wholesaler" obligation is likely to be beneficial provided other incentives are in place to promote the collection and recycling of the packaging passing through small shops and I therefore propose to remove the "wholesaler obligation" from the Regulations.

  (iv) I agree with the Advisory Committee that there is considerable potential for increased involvement of consumers in business efforts to increase the amount of packaging waste recovered, to supplement the initiatives of local authorities, voluntary groups and other organisations. I note that some obligated businesses are better placed to ensure that consumers are informed than others, while other businesses have little or no contact with the consumer. It will therefore be a requirement on obligated businesses whose main activity is "selling" to provide information to consumers about the role they can play in increasing recovery and recycling of packaging waste, and in encouraging greater re-use of packaging. A similar requirement will be placed on compliance schemes.

  (v) The packaging Regulations are also intended to reduce the amount of packaging used in order to avoid creating waste as far as possible. I attach great importance to further progress on minimisation and want to see what industry can do on a voluntary basis to develop indicators against which performance can be measured.

  (vi) A rigorous monitoring and enforcement policy on the part of the Agencies is essential if the mandatory Directive targets are to be met in 2001. The Regulations are based on an approach which shares the burden between the different players in the packaging chain and depends on effective "free rider" deterrence. Currently some 8,900 businesses are covered by " registration and this number will rise in 2000 when the turnover threshold test falls. If least-cost compliance is going to be achieved, business needs to be sure that all those who have legal obligations under the Regulations will register and comply with their full obligations. To this end, the Agency fee will rise to £900 with effect from 1999. I welcome the efforts made by the Agencies to strengthen enforcement programmes and I understand that the Agency has started taking proceedings against a number of companies who failed to register in 1998. With effect from this year I will be asking the Agencies to publish their monitoring programmes and report half yearly on number, size and sector of businesses checked for registration, for data provision, and for compliance with the recovery and recycling obligations. I also want to see a report on the allocation of Agency fee income to activities in this area. To

  337
  help the Agencies in their monitoring duties, I intend that compliance schemes will be given a deadline of 15 April for the full provision of data relating to all their members, and 30 June for the provision of updated operational plans. The registration deadline for individual businesses and compliance schemes will be 7 April each year.

  (vii) I am aware of the challenging nature of the data requirement but I note that business is itself keen to have as accurate as possible a base-line figure for the tonnage of packaging in the waste stream against which to plan. My Department's provisional estimate of packaging in the waste stream is approximately 8.5 million tonnes, rising to some 9.7 million tonnes once wood and other packaging materials are included. The more accurate the data provided by obligated parties, the more effective will be the efforts to plan for increasing recovery of packaging waste and meeting targets in 2001. An improved data form is proposed for immediate use, and with a view to easing the data requirement on businesses obligated in 2000 for the first time, the Department has commissioned work to develop "off-the-shelf' data forms for these smaller firms who will have the option of using these forms or collecting and providing data themselves. I am prepared to consider further whether there are alternative ways of collecting data that would meet all Directive requirements and enable business to plan confidently for continued compliance with the Directive targets.

  (viii) I have seen the Advisory Committee's recommendation that business concerns about hardship needed to be addressed and their advice that businesses in some sectors could face significant net costs of compliance, particularly if they are not able to pass costs on; that particular concerns had been demonstrated by the convertor sector: and that some interim changes should be made to the percentage activity obligations. The changes the Committee is recommending are a 2 per cent. reduction in the convertor activity obligation (from 11 per cent. to 9 per cent.); a 1 per cent. increase in the activity obligations of packer/fillers (from 36 per cent. to 37 per cent.) and retailers (from 47 per cent. to 48 per cent.).
  The Committee has also recommended that a cross-sectoral, independent audit of net compliance costs of all sectors should be carried out in 1999. I welcome the Packaging Federation's support for both these proposals. I am inclined to accept the Committee's recommendations on these points but it will first be necessary to consult more widely on the proposed changes and the Department will be setting this in hand as early as possible.

  (ix) I remain concerned that not enough is being done to ensure that sufficient household packaging waste will be available to contribute, as it will have to, to the achievement of the Directive targets in 2001. However, I have noted the advice of the Advisory Committee on this point and the views of the Environment Agency and others. Although separate targets for household waste were proposed in our consultation paper, I do not propose to introduce separate targets for household waste this year. I will be giving further consideration to ways of increasing recovery of packaging waste from the household waste stream.
  I am also proposing to make some "technical" amendments to the Regulations to clarify or simplify existing provisions or deal with unintended omissions. I also intend to provide the option for those businesses investing in identifiable re-use systems to spread the cost of their obligations.
  I will also made a separate statement shortly about the Packaging Waste Recovery Note (PRN) system.

  Lorry and Bus Company Licences
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the offices at which work related to the licensing of lorry and bus companies(a) currently takes place and (b) took place prior to 1996. [67452]
  338
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In respect to Wales prior to April 1996, administrative support for the Traffic Commissioner for South Wales, the licensing authority for operators of buses, coaches and heavy lorries, was provided by staff from the Department of Transport based in Cardiff. The northern counties of Wales are currently the responsibility of the Traffic Commissioner for the North Western Traffic Area, then supported by an office in Manchester. Administrative services are now provided by offices in Birmingham and Leeds respectively. My noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety has today announced that, subject to Parliamentary approval, a new traffic area for Wales will be established with effect from 1 April 1999. The new traffic area will be administered from Birmingham, although the Traffic Commissioner will continue to hold his public inquiries in Wales as appropriate.

  Road Bridges
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amount has been spent to date on bridge strengthening to implement EU Directive 85/3/EEC; and how much he estimates will be spent to complete implementation, expressed in each case at November 1987 prices. [67595]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: On Highways Agency bridges, the estimated expenditure to 31 March 1999 on the current assessment and strengthening programme is £200m at November 1987 prices. The estimated cost to complete the work is £83m.

  The Directive requires strengthening to take place only on routes of strategic importance for HGVs. We are not able to separate expenditure by local authorities for these purposes from more general expenditure on bridge works.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the total costs to highway authorities as a result of bridge strengthening works undertaken to implement EU Directive 85/3/EEC, excluding moneys provided to highway authorities from central Government under TPP allocations. [67593]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: I refer to the previous answer, which provides details of Highways Agency costs to implement bridge strengthening in 1987 prices. We cannot identify local authorities expenditure required for implementation of Directive 85/3/EEC. Not all bridge strengthening work being undertaken by local authorities is a requirement of the Directive.

  The assessment programme has provided for a review of the condition and load bearing capability of all local authority bridges in England. Although a proportion of the works planned by authorities are on routes of the greatest strategic importance for HGVs, other works have been identified which authorities wish to undertake to meet the need of their local communities. Authorities also have discretion within their annual capital settlement to adjust the funding given between that for bridge works and that structural maintenance of principal roads.

  Motorway Network
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of motorway were open at the end of(a) 1979 and
  (b) 1997. [68125]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information that the hon. Gentleman seeks is available only for financial years, not calender years. On 1 April 1979, there were 1,339 miles of motorway open in England, and on 1 April 1997, the corresponding figure was 1,759 miles. The figures include both trunk road motorways and those for which the local highway authority is responsible.

  Radioactive Emissions (OSPAR Meeting)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the OSPAR meeting on radioactive emissions held in Dublin this month; and if he will place in the Library copies of the United Kingdom and other submissions made to the meeting. [67703]

  Mr. Meale
  The OSPAR technical working group on radioactive substances met in Dublin from 19 to 22 January. It made progress on a range of issues related to radioactive substances in the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic. Copies of UK papers submitted to the meeting have been placed in the Library. It would be for other OSPAR Contracting Parties to make available copies of their papers. A summary record of the meeting will shortly be available from the OSPAR Secretariat, New Court, 48 Carey Street, London WC2A 2JQ.

  Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with ministers of the German Government concerning the termination of contracts with BNFL for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel; and if he will make a statement. [67705]

  Mr. Meale
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment met Jürgen Trittin, the German Environment Minister, on 20 January to discuss the Environmental Council Programme during the German Presidency of the EU. There was no substantive discussion about the termination of reprocessing contracts between German Utilities and BNFL. Such discussions were held earlier that day between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and Herr Trittin. I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 547.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to make a response to the Environment Agency's proposed decision on the BNFL Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant. [67707]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 11 November 1998,Official Report, column 189.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards the Crossrail project; [67973]

  (2) when his predecessor asked Railtrack to prepare a report on the Crossrail project; and when he expects to receive this report. [67974]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In response to a written Parliamentary Question the then Secretary of State for Transport told the House on 2 April 1996,Official Report, columns 129–30, that he had invited the Chairman of Railtrack to consider the Crossrail project with his Board. Railtrack has not responded to this invitation.

  The Government's priority is to upgrade the existing Underground: the Public Private partnership will achieve that. It will be for the Mayor to take decisions on the future of the project as part of his or her integrated transport strategy for London, in the light of his or her priorities and the funds available. Meanwhile, the Crossrail route remains safeguarded.

  West Midlands Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to expand membership of the West Midlands Regional Development Agency to include a representative from(a) Worcestershire and (b) the business community of the region; and if he will make a statement. [68109]

  Mr. Meale
  We have in mind to appoint another member to the West Midlands RDA and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Congestion and Parking Charges
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if all revenues raised from congestion charging or private non-residential parking charges will be ring-fenced and re-invested in transport. [66526]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government's proposal, set out in its consultation document, "Breaking the Logjam" is that 100 per cent. of the net revenues in pilot charging schemes will be retained by local authorities for at least 10 years for spending only on transport-related projects. They will be obliged to set up ring-fenced accounts for this purpose. The Government will have to approve all pilot schemes and will ensure that the proposed spending of the revenues in each scheme represents value for money.

  Eurostar Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1998,Official Report, column 135, if he has commissioned an independent review of alternative proposals for regional Eurostar services; and if he will make a statement. [68573]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have today announced a competition to seek a consultant to undertake a review of alternative proposals for regional Eurostar services. In addition to addressing itself in particular to the study completed by
  341
  Inter-Capital and Regional Rail Ltd., and the alternative proposals put forward by the Virgin Group, the review will include a thorough examination of a broad range of key elements including the points to be served, infrastructure requirements in terms of both rolling stock and track, wider social and economic benefits to the regions of having such services, and the case for carrying domestic passengers. These terms of reference have been informed by the recent report of the Transport Sub-Committee, for which I am grateful. I have asked for a thorough report to be presented to Government as soon as practicable. It is likely to take some months.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Railtrack's application for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 in respect of the Thameslink 2000 Project. [68604]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have been advised by Railtrack that they intend making a supplementary Order application which will revise the scope of the proposed works at a number of locations, in particular at Farringdon and London Bridge. These changes arise from Railtrack's consideration of objections made to the original application. The supplementary application is expected to be made by the end of September. To allow time for objections to this application to be taken into account, the Secretary of State has decided to defer until 9 December 1999 the date by which he must give notice of an intention to hold a public inquiry into the proposed Railtrack (Thameslink 2000) Order. We will take a decision before that date if possible but this will depend on when the supplementary application is made.

  Ministerial Flights
  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 by aeroplane funded by third parties since 1 May 1997. [66464]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made five such journeys: to address the joint Conference of the North West Regional Association and North West Partnership in Windermere; to visit a Freight Distribution Centre in the Midlands; to open the extension to Humberside Airport; to tour the P&O container port in Southampton and to visit Norwich Airport and Felixstowe Port. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, made two journeys: one to deliver the key note speech at the Institute of Wastes Management conference in Plymouth and the other as part of the International Marine Biodiversity Workshop in Jamaica. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning made two journeys: one to tour Great Yarmouth regeneration projects and the other on a fact finding tour of a quarry. My hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction also made two such journeys: a tour of Barking Reach housing development and a fact finding visit to a quarry.

  I visited the General Lighthouse Authority's Pharos Lightship ship and in addition, I visited Australia in September 1998, not in my Ministerial capacity, to speak
  342
  to and meet women's organisations interested in increasing the participation of women in Parliament and public life. My visit, including travel costs, was sponsored by Emily's List of Australia as recorded in the Parliamentary Register of Members' Interests. While in Australia, I attended a number of meetings in my official capacity, including an International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled People.

  Planning Legislation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Railtrack's position as regards planning legislation, with particular reference to demolition of property. [67097]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The carrying out of development of land generally requires planning permission. This normally entails a planning application but the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants a general permission (through permitted development rights) for various types of development. Where Railtrack carried out works which fall within the definition of permitted development under Class A of Part II or Part 17 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, it will enjoy permitted development rights and will not need to submit a planning application.

  Demolition of property requires planning permission where it meets the definition of development. Under the Town and Country Planning (Demolition—Description of Buildings) Direction 1995, planning permission is only required for the total demolition of dwellinghouses and buildings adjoining them outside conservation areas, and for the demolition of the whole or part of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure within conservation areas. Part 31 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order then grants permitted development rights for the demolition of these descriptions of buildings, subject to certain conditions. However, listed building consent or conservation area consent for the total or substantial demolition of buildings may also be required. These provisions apply to Railtrack as they do to other prospective developers.

  Planning League Table
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost to public funds of compiling the planning league table. [67876]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The cost to the Department of producing Tables 5 to 9 of the Planning Performance Checklist published on 12 January 1999 was approximately £180.

  Motor Vehicle Accidents
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many motor vehicle accidents occurred in the last year for which figures are available on(a) motorways, (b) other trunk roads and (c) other roads; and if he will make a statement. [67735]
  343
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of injury road accidents in GB involving one or more motor vehicle1

  1997

  Motorways

  8,676

  Trunk A roads2

  20,255

  Other A roads2

  90,260

  All A roads

  110,515

  Others

  119,462

  1Accidents involving only non-motorised vehicles are not included. There were an additional 1,393 in 1997 which involved only non-motorised vehicles

  2Trunk A Road data for 1997 is provisional

  Mayor of London (Salary)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a decision on the salary of the Mayor of London. [67880]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I will be inviting the Senior Salaries Review Body to advise me on the salaries for the Mayor of London and the London Assembly Members. We will announce our decision when we have had an opportunity to consider its recommendations.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is proposing to accelerate the processing of planning applications. [67879]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local planning authorities handle some half a million planning applications every year. It is essential that these are processed efficiently and effectively.

  In his Modernising Planning Statement, published on 15 January 1998, my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, set out a range of measures designed to make the planning system operate more efficiently and effectively. This included initiatives to improve the handling of planning applications.

  In April 1998, the Government published good practice guides on development briefs and the one stop shop approach to development-related approvals. Other initiatives include funding of a good practice guide on ?Best Value? in planning being drawn up by the Planning Officers' Society; a review of consultation procedures for planning applications; and a review of procedures for handling listed building consent applications.

  The Government are continuing to monitor closely local authorities? performance in reaching decisions on planning applications and publishes regular Planning Performance Checklists. My hon. Friend is currently holding a series of meetings with a selection of local authorities in each English region to discuss handling of planning applications as well as development plan preparation. These meetings are part of our wider commitment to work in partnership with local government to improve the planning system as part of the Modernising Planning initiative and provide an opportunity to share good practice experience.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67843]

  The Attorney-General
  My department has not recently published a White or Green Paper. However, the independent report of the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service (the Glidewell Report) published on 1 June 1998 was made available on the Internet and could therefore be converted for use by the visually impaired.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office confirmed in his reply on 27 January 1999, Official Report, column 296, that the Cabinet Office will shortly issue guidelines on the arrangements for publishing White and Green Papers; and I would expect any such publications produced by this office to comply with that guidance.

TREASURY

  Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has had regarding EU tax harmonisation; and if he will make a statement. [66528]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor gets a large number of representations on many subjects, particularly in advance of a Budget. The Government's position on EU tax issues was set out on 9 December 1998,Official Report, columns 388–422, by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the preparations needed for United Kingdom entry into the single European currency. [66531]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK economy needs a period of stability and settled convergence before we could join the single currency. The Government are committed to a programme of economic reforms which are both in the national economic interest and which should help to deliver the stability needed to prepare us for membership.

  In addition we will issue an outline National Changeover Plan early this year which will set out the practical steps that would need to be taken if the UK decides to join.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount to be raised by the windfall tax in the current year. [66532]

  Mrs. Roche
  The second and final instalment of the Windfall Tax was due in December and £2.6 billion was collected. In total, the Windfall Tax raised £5.2 billion.
  345
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has for the proceeds of the windfall tax on the privatised utilities. [66538]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Windfall Tax has enabled the Government to embark on the New Deal—the biggest ever programme to get unemployed and economically inactive people into work. Over 300,000 people have already benefited from the New Deal so far, and over 60,000 have found jobs.

  The Government have constantly extended and developed programmes under the New Deal since taking office. Its purpose is to give people new hope and new chances, and a route out of poverty and benefit dependency. This principle will guide future policy development, as resources allow.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made towards the implementation of the working families tax credit. [66533]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue is leading a joint project team with the Benefits Agency which is developing the detailed administrative arrangements for the new tax credit in time for its introduction later this year.

  Orphan Assets
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to orphan assets. [66534]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury's policy on orphan assets (inherited estates) of insurance companies was set out in the Treasury's response to the Treasury Select Committee report on personal pension misselling. This was published in the Committee's First Special Report (session 1998–99) on 18 January.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with colleagues in Japan and Germany in advance of the G7 Finance Ministers meeting next month relating to the HIPC initiative. [66535]

  Ms Hewitt
  The HIPC initiative was discussed with all G7 partners, including Germany and Japan, and with other countries at the Annual Meetings of the IMF/World bank in Washington in October. The Chancellor also discussed the initiative with German Finance Minister Oskar Lafontaine in November. The HIPC initiative will next be discussed at the G7 Finance Ministers? and Central bank Governors? meeting in Bonn on 20 February following Chancellor Schroeder?s announcement last week of a new German initiative on debt.

  Royal National Lifeboat Institution
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to enable the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to recover value added tax on the cost of maintenance work to boathouses. [66536]
  346
  Dawn Primarolo
  In common with all individuals and organisations, charities, including the RNLI, cannot reclaim VAT on the things that they buy which relate to their non-business activities.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he made of the impact on the contingency reserve of recent military action against Iraq. [66537]

  Mr. Milburn
  The cost of overseas operations will be considered against the Defence budget as a whole when agreeing the Spring Supplementary Estimates.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current levels of youth unemployment. [66539]

  Ms Hewitt
  Youth claimant unemployment has fallen by over 100,000 since the general election, to stand at 315,000 last October. This fall has been spurred by the New Deal for young people unemployed for over six months, which has so far helped over 50,000 of them into jobs.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the proposed EU withholding tax. [66540]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) today,Official Report, column 465.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to revise the current structure of the fiscal regime in respect of North sea oil; and if he will make a statement. [66541]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have no plans at present to revise the structure of the North Sea fiscal regime.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact the working families tax credit will have on child poverty during its first year of operation. [66543]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government believe that, for those that can, work is the best way out of poverty. The Working Families Tax Credit, together with the National Minimum Wage and reform of National Insurance Contributions, will help to make work pay and encourage the move from welfare into work. Together, these reforms will provide a guaranteed income for families with children, who are working full-time, of £190 a week.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to tackle the poverty trap in relation to taxes and benefits for people moving from unemployment into work. [66549]
  347
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have taken a number of steps to make work pay and help people move from welfare into work. The introduction of the National Minimum Wage, reform to National Insurance Contributions and the Working Families Tax Credit will all help to make people better off in work than out of work. Together, these reforms will provide a guaranteed income for families in full-time work of £190 a week.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to help working families on low incomes. [66550]

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his plans to increase the net income of people in work. [66552]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have introduced a number of measures to increase the net income of low-income families. These include the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, reform of National Insurance Contributions and the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit. Together, these reforms will provide a guaranteed income for families in full-time work of £190 a week.

  Banking and Insurance Services
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the action his Department is taking following the Office of Fair Trading?s recent recommendation that banking and insurance companies should provide better services for people on low incomes and benefits. [66544]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are studying the Director General?s report.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a tax rebate system for embedded suppliers using the electricity distribution network. [66545]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the findings of Lord Marshall?s report on "Economic instruments and business use of energy". The Government are considering the recommendations carefully.

  Euro
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has held with the Monetary Policy Committee on shadowing the euro. [66546]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have no intention of shadowing the euro.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has receiving calling for the United Kingdom to join the Euroland countries. [66551]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's policy on UK membership of EMU was set out clearly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement to the House of Commons in October 1997. The key factor is whether the economic benefits of joining are clear and unambiguous. To make that decision the Chancellor of 348
  the Exchequer has set out five economic tests which would have to be met before the UK could join the single currency.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for expenditure on the modernisation of the public services in respect of the Public Service Agreements. [66547]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Public Service Agreements set out the objectives and targets which we will deliver in return for the investment agreed in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Agenda 2000
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons for the omission of development aid as a priority in the programme of Agenda 2000. [66548]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Agenda 2000 negotiation will set the overall total for EC aid. During the subsequent discussions, which will determine how this amount is allocated between programmes, the UK will argue strongly for an increase in the share going to the world's poorest countries.

  Public Pay Awards
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would have been the cost of not staging last year's pay awards to(a) nurses, midwives and health visitors, (b) professions allied to medicine and (c) teachers. [66553]

  Mr. Milburn
  It would not have been possible to meet the commitment to keep within spending plans without staging last year?s recommendations by the pay review bodies.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of beer has been seized by HM Customs officials at Portsmouth Ferry Port in each quarter since January 1993. [67130]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available in this form. Specific figures are available by each financial year for the quantity of beer from within the European Union seized by Excise Verification Officers at Portsmouth since April 1993.

  Year

  Litres

  1993–94

  20,753

  1994–95

  10,874

  1995–96

  41,747

  1996–97

  79,397

  1997–98

  38,906

  1998–99

  140,629

  1April to December

  Inheritance Tax Exemption
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for the Brighton and Hove, East Sussex and West Sussex local authority areas(a) the locations

  349
  of land in respect of which conditional exemption from inheritance tax is currently allowed, (b) the number of cases in which such exemption has been lost or deferred tax charged as a result of breaches of the conditions related to exemption in 1998–99 and (c) the location of land in respect of which exemption has been lost or deferred tax charged in each of the last five years because of breaches of the relevant conditions. [67204]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The normal rules on taxpayer confidentiality currently prevent me from providing the requested information.

  The Finance Act 1998 strengthened the conditions of the inheritance tax exemption, including the rules on disclosure of information to the public. The Inland Revenue are accordingly reviewing existing exemptions with a view to re-negotiating owners? undertakings so as to secure publication of information about tax-exempt assets and the arrangements on public access. Once the undertakings have been revised, that information will be available on the Internet.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67848]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 296.

  The Treasury will make arrangements for White and Green Papers to be made available on disk in a form accessible to the visually impaired, as and when this service is requested.

  Currently, all public Treasury documents are produced in the optimum typeface sizes for legibility. These are also available on the Internet, where they can be heard by visually handicapped people who have access to a "talking computer", or can be displayed and printed out as text of any size.

  Tax Burden
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average overall tax burden for a taxpayer in the United Kingdom for each of the last five years. [67731]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on income tax as a percentage of median income for each of the last five years is shown in table 2.8 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1998, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Estimating the impact of indirect taxes is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income.

  Environmentally Sustainable Economy
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to encourage an environmentally sustainable economy in Britain. [67278]
  350
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The Government' s approach to sustainable development is based on four broad objectives: maintenance of high and stable levels of growth and employment; social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment and prudent use of natural resources.

  The Comprehensive Spending Review included a range of measures expected to make a positive impact on the environment, including additional money for the integrated transport strategy which will help tackle congestion and air pollution; more money for energy efficiency to help alleviate fuel poverty and meet our commitments on climate change; and more money to countryside programmes.

  The tax system also has an important role to play in underpinning this strategy. Important changes were made to fuel duties and the landfill tax in the first two Budgets. The Government will continue to explore the scope for using the tax system to deliver environmental objectives, in line with the Statement of Intent on environmental taxation.

  VAT
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 January 1998,Official Report, columns 286-87, if he will state (a) what further key elements will be necessary to change the current transitional system of VAT to a definitive (Common) system other than those contained in Commission Document COM (96) 328 FIN, (b) when any Resolution was passed by either House relating thereto and (c) what consideration has been given to related proposals in the ECOFIN Council, or any of its subsidiary bodies. [67936]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Commission document COM (96) 328 FIN is a comprehensive and detailed work programme, with a supporting timetable, for changing the current transitional EC VAT system into an origin-based definitive or Common system. To implement this Common VAT system no further key elements are required.

  European Commission (Fraud)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the establishment of the Inquiry into Allegations of Fraud within the European Commission, setting out(a) to whom the report of the Inquiry will be addressed, (b) the names of those who will carry out the Inquiry, (c) the terms of reference of the Inquiry and (d) the Inquiry?s (i) powers and (ii) procedure. [67932]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 14 January the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling, among other things for a committee of independent experts to be convened under the auspices of the Parliament and the Commission with a mandate to examine the way in which the Commission detects and deals with fraud, mismanagement and nepotism. The President of the European Commission agreed to the establishment of such a committee.

  I understand that the composition and modus operandi of the committee have not yet been finalised.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the mileage rates currently applicable to staff, indicating what changes have been made to encourage staff to switch from cars to public transport and other less polluting forms of travel. [67493]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The current standard mileage rates are as follows:
  Up to 1500cc: 35.7p
  1501–2000cc: 40p
  Over 2000cc: 43p
  Public transport rate 22.3p.

  The Department continues to encourage the use of public transport by providing enhanced public transport information; encouraging alternative forms of transport by providing additional cycle storage areas and by limiting the use of private transport for business purposes.

  Tax System
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received calling for a review of the tax system for older taxpayers in order to provide a simplified system tailored to their needs. [67318]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: I have received a number of representations on this issue.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times he or his junior Ministers have paid official visits to(a) the Czech Republic, (b) Poland, (c) Hungary, (d) Slovenia, (e) Estonia and (f) Cyprus since May 1997; and what was the purpose of each visit. [67701]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: The Treasury is actively pursuing contacts with all of the applicants to the European Union, including inward and outward visits at official and ministerial level.

  In addition the Financial Secretary visited Customs and Excise?s UK International Assistance Programme in Prague, Czech Republic between 6–8 November 1997.

  Targeted Economic Assistance (Pensioners)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the need for targeted economic assistance to areas which have high concentrations of retired persons. [67256]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: Government spending on retired persons is targeted at individuals rather than at areas. The allocation of extra economic assistance through regeneration spending to particular areas is determined by the Index of Local Deprivation, a comprehensive index made up of a broad range of indicators of deprivation. The Government are also examining the issues which affect retired people at a national and local level in a number of ways, through the Performance and Innovation Unit?s work on Active Ageing, the Better Government for Older People pilot areas, the Health Action Zones and other national and area based initiatives.

  Charity Taxation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish his consultation document on charity taxation. [67907]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: The consultation document will be published by the time of the Budget.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department will publish regulations enabling unrelieved surplus advance corporation tax to be utilised by companies. [67909]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: We expect to publish the regulations shortly.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many incorrect tax demands have been issued by the Inland Revenue since 20 December 1998. [67908]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: The Inland Revenue issues taxpayers with Statements of Account (not demands) which are a statement of the individual's tax position and include a payslip to enable the taxpayer to make payment if one is due.

  The latest issue comprised 3.4 million statements. The Inland Revenue are aware that 870,000 of those statements contained superfluous information which could have misled taxpayers into making a wrong payment.

  The Inland Revenue has issued letters of explanation and apology to all affected taxpayers in time to alert them before payment became due.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the mis-selling of AVCs; and what plans he has to extend the current investigation into pensions mis-selling to include AVCs. [67677]

  Ms Hewitt
  None. The Financial Services Authority issued a report on the possible mis-selling of FSAVCs on 19 October 1998.

  Health and Education
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for public spending on health and education for the next three years. [66542]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Government?s spending plans for the next three years on health and education were set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper, "Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform". We are providing money for modernisation, we will invest an extra £40 billion in health and education over the coming three years.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the value for money to public funds of using PFI for financing public sector capital developments. [66524]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Private Finance Initiative is one of the forms of public-private partnerships by which the Government are harnessing private sector finance, innovation and management skills to modernise our infrastructure and improve public services. This Government, unlike the last, are making the PFI work in areas such as the National Health Service. Since the election we have signed £4 billion worth of PFI deals.

  Economic Growth
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his estimate of economic growth for 1999–2000 and if he will make a statement. [66527]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government?s next economic forecast will be published as part of the forthcoming Financial Statement and Budget Report.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Home Detention Curfew scheme will be implemented. [68426]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Detention Curfew Scheme, under which selected short term prisoners may spend up to the last two months of the custodial part of their sentence under a curfew enforced by electronic monitoring, will commence on 28 January. The scheme will provide a managed transition between prison and living in the community. It will deprive them of their liberty for a major part of the day and also provide some structure and order into often disorganized lives. No prisoner will be allowed on the scheme without a risk assessment, and those who fail to comply with the conditions of the scheme may be recalled to prison.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 330, on deportation orders, how many (a) failed asylum seekers and (b) immigration offenders were removed in 1996 and 1997; and how many have yet to be removed. [67338]

  Mr. Mike O?Brien
  The information I gave on improved removals performance on 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 330, in response to the hon. Member?s question on deportation orders, related specifically to removals and voluntary departures following deportation and illegal entry action. That information, therefore, included asylum applicants who were removed as a consequence of such action but excluded all removals under port procedures.

  The numbers of deportation and illegal entry removals and voluntary departures effected during 1996 and 1997 are given in the table. The figures exclude removals under
  354
  port procedures. The latest snapshot, taken on 4 January 1999, indicates that the number of persons against whom deportation or illegal entry action has been initiated but not yet completed stands at approximately 67,000. In the great majority of these cases, however, there exists at least one legal or similar barrier to immediate removal, such as: an outstanding application for asylum or for leave to remain on another basis; appeals; further representations; Judicial Review; documentation problems; custodial sentences; and absconding. These factors serve to limit the rate at which removals can be effected and, in some cases, may result in the granting of leave to remain rather than removal.

  Removals 1 following enforcement action2, 1996 to 1997

  Number of persons 1996

  1997

  Asylum applicants3

  2,120

  3,050

  Non-asylum applicants

  3,280

  3,530

  Total enforcement2 removals1

  5,400

  6,580

  1 Includes "voluntary" departures after deportation or illegal entry action had been initiated.

  2 Persons subject to deportation action under the provisions of sections 3(5) and 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971 or illegal entry action under section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  3 Persons who had applied for asylum at some stage.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were received from nationals of(a) the Czech Republic and (b) Slovakia in each month since 1 May 1997. [67856]

  Mr. Mike O?Brien
  The information requested is given in the table. The hon. Gentleman will note that the recent trend is downwards in respect of both counties.

  Asylum applications1,2 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants—May 1997 to December 1998, by month, nationals of the Czech Republic and Slovakia

  Number

  Period

  Czech Republic

  Slovakia

  1997

  May

  5

  *

  June

  15

  25

  July

  30

  20

  August

  30

  50

  September

  15

  55

  October

  85

  85

  November

  20

  20

  December

  15

  15

  1998

  January

  5

  5

  February

  5

  15

  March

  15

  15

  April

  30

  10

  May

  20

  15

  June

  35

  35

  July

  45

  125

  August

  60

  230

  September

  90

  250

  October

  75

  115

  November

  70

  15

  December

  60

  15

  1 Provisional figures rounded to 5 with * = 1 or 2

  2 Principal applicants

  Either-way Cases
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of defendants charged with an either way offence and electing for trial in the Crown Court pleaded guilty or had their case disposed of without a trial in the Crown Court(a) in each of the last 10 years before 1 October 1997 and (b) since 1 October 1997. [67572]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he had made of the operation of section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [67578]

  Mr. Boateng
  Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which has been in force since October 1997, provides for defendants in either-way cases to be asked to indicate their plea before the magistrates decide whether to accept or decline jurisdiction. The objective was to allow cases which would previously have been committed for trial, and in which a guilty plea was indicated, to be dealt with more quickly, either by the magistrates themselves where the appropriate sentence (after any discount for the guilty plea) was within the court?s powers, or if not through being committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

  It is too early to make a final assessment of the effect of this provision. The indications so far are that substantially fewer cases are being committed for trial, but that there has also been a significant increase in the numbers committed for sentence. It is estimated (on the basis of data up to June last year) that committals for trial have fallen by 1,500 defendants a month and committals for sentence have risen by 1,300 defendants a month. Work is in hand to assess whether there is scope for magistrates? courts to dispose of more of the cases which they now commit for sentence.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of defendants charged with an either way offence elected for trial in the Crown Court(a) in each of the 15 years before 1 October 1997 and (b) since 1 October 1997. [67571]

  Mr. Boateng
  The question cannot be answered from the data collected centrally. However, data from the Attorney-General on the proportion of Crown Prosecution Service either way cases committed for trail to the Crown Court and finalised following the election by the defendant since the year ending September 1988 (earliest year ending September available) are as follows:

  Police net revenue expenditure 1989–90 to 1998–99

  £000

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–991

  Avon and Somerset

  95,221

  102,351

  111,509

  124,322

  132,421

  138,921

  147,750

  152,087

  152,673

  167,417

  Bedfordshire

  32,079

  35,599

  39,212

  44,210

  47,958

  50,937

  55,399

  56,627

  58,570

  62,317

  Cambridgeshire

  38,444

  42,364

  47,116

  50,027

  55,776

  57,371

  63,089

  65,024

  68,681

  71,230

  Cheshire

  57,810

  62,370

  66,960

  72,966

  79,593

  83,254

  93,715

  94,177

  104,005

  106,523

  City of London

  35,285

  37,074

  40,820

  44,246

  49,858

  51,679

  57,541

  57,317

  57,893

  60,862

  Cleveland

  46,995

  51,560

  54,802

  59,802

  63,156

  65,412

  71,258

  73,108

  75,426

  82,282

  Cumbria

  35,858

  39,961

  45,080

  49,501

  51,698

  53,200

  55,262

  56,856

  61,709

  63,000

  Derbyshire

  58,972

  61,261

  66,048

  75,750

  78,207

  82,924

  88,291

  90,420

  95,641

  100,894

  356

  Year ending September

  Percentage

  1988

  46

  1989

  43

  1990

  39

  1991

  36

  1992

  37

  1993

  36

  1994

  35

  1995

  33

  1996

  33

  1997

  28

  1998

  28

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of either way cases were dealt with by magistrates courts(a) in each of the 10 years before 1 October 1997 and (b) since 1 October 1997; [67574]

  (2) what proportion of either way cases were committed for sentence by the magistrates courts to the Crown Court
  (a) in each of the 10 years before 1 October 1997 and
  (b) since 1 October 1997. [67576]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is given in the table.

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates? court since 1987 for either way offences, England and Wales

  Year

  Percentage committed to the Crown Court for sentence

  Percentage dealt with at magistrates? courts1

  1987

  1

  78

  1988

  1

  79

  1989

  1

  79

  1990

  1

  80

  1991

  2

  81

  1992

  1

  83

  1993

  1

  84

  1994

  1

  84

  1995

  1

  85

  1996

  1

  85

  1997 January-September

  1

  84

  1997 October-December

  3

  83

  19982 January-June

  4

  85

  1Excludes defendants committed to the Crown Court for sentence

  2Estimated

  Police Funding
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown, by police force area, of the total funding available to the police in each of the last 10 years. [67584]

  Mr. Boateng
  The net expenditure by each police authority in each of the last 10 years is set out in the table. A breakdown of the funding components of these totals is not available.
  357

  Police net revenue expenditure 1989–90 to 1998–99

  £000

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–991

  Devon and Cornwall

  93,697

  105,660

  117,436

  128,271

  136,654

  139,381

  146,556

  150,392

  155,435

  167,117

  Dorset

  42,908

  49,024

  52,006

  55,644

  57,564

  62,264

  65,818

  67,831

  69,727

  73,497

  Durham

  41,893

  44,964

  48,589

  53,226

  57,065

  58,465

  68,018

  68,035

  75,166

  78,103

  Dyfed-Powys

  29,522

  30,878

  35,150

  38,896

  41,518

  44,381

  46,534

  47,869

  50,952

  52,609

  Essex

  92,207

  104,703

  115,540

  125,833

  134,545

  142,595

  147,795

  151,412

  157,487

  168,889

  Gloucestershire

  36,299

  40,236

  44,611

  48,067

  50,295

  54,248

  56,623

  58,420

  58,633

  63,780

  Greater Manchester

  213,529

  228,550

  248,813

  272,190

  296,016

  311,610

  328,297

  341,170

  353,319

  371,497

  Gwent

  30,444

  33,286

  36,682

  38,965

  41,406

  42,951

  49,907

  57,742

  64,598

  67,919

  Hampshire

  100,459

  111,152

  124,970

  135,434

  143,157

  152,584

  169,155

  172,845

  180,791

  190,920

  Hertfordshire

  51,968

  58,743

  62,868

  68,523

  72,520

  78,004

  87,088

  88,863

  93,011

  97,859

  Humberside

  63,700

  69,697

  77,396

  84,119

  88,934

  90,589

  98,165

  99,719

  106,220

  111,587

  Kent

  98,455

  109,013

  128,734

  137,696

  143,045

  151,283

  158,316

  161,625

  174,211

  178,916

  Lancashire

  99,392

  108,135

  122,019

  128,669

  138,730

  141,648

  156,135

  161,865

  169,275

  178,051

  Leicestershire

  57,279

  61,274

  68,366

  72,784

  75,852

  79,794

  90,205

  92,853

  98,789

  102,707

  Lincolnshire

  37,548

  41,597

  47,235

  51,065

  54,121

  57,678

  60,495

  61,508

  66,184

  68,322

  Merseyside

  147,251

  160,697

  178,884

  189,280

  202,485

  208,608

  218,694

  221,172

  224,327

  245,277

  Metropolitan Police

  1,076,767

  1,197,619

  1,339,603

  1,453,981

  1,515,213

  1,563,139

  1,654,368

  1,683,181

  1,676,617

  1,778,001

  Norfolk

  42,875

  48,115

  54,100

  59,084

  62,209

  67,073

  72,150

  75,547

  80,222

  82,339

  Northamptonshire

  37,553

  40,084

  45,499

  50,617

  53,410

  58,150

  59,521

  59,252

  64,605

  67,134

  Northumbia

  110,667

  121,364

  132,826

  136,534

  154,875

  168,982

  180,743

  186,410

  195,092

  205,380

  North Wales

  41,084

  44,725

  50,700

  55,897

  58,387

  61,156

  66,185

  68,266

  70,920

  75,075

  North Yorkshire

  43,887

  47,396

  51,679

  58,444

  61,464

  61,738

  67,355

  67,042

  71,840

  75,638

  Nottinghamshire

  68,609

  75,709

  82,629

  89,507

  95,723

  102,518

  110,506

  113,591

  120,556

  124,828

  South Wales

  97,275

  106,257

  118,537

  127,300

  130,885

  130,371

  154,710

  147,458

  159,411

  163,430

  South Yorkshire

  91,700

  94,778

  103,166

  117,544

  124,637

  131,753

  148,586

  150,949

  166,027

  168,205

  Staffordshire

  65,688

  74,272

  82,163

  87,742

  93,993

  98,458

  102,587

  107,832

  110,264

  122,540

  Suffolk

  40,113

  43,008

  48,069

  50,731

  54,460

  56,056

  58,594

  60,963

  63,676

  65,785

  Surrey

  52,623

  57,125

  63,421

  70,879

  74,649

  83,544

  84,282

  85,345

  90,976

  90,738

  Sussex

  84,408

  92,991

  106,178

  115,114

  119,678

  127,828

  145,857

  150,626

  157,631

  162,664

  Thames Valley

  119,989

  134,111

  149,414

  160,512

  173,938

  186,286

  195,850

  201,397

  210,333

  221,147

  Warwickshire

  31,761

  36,082

  39,842

  42,489

  46,084

  48,344

  47,865

  47,686

  51,003

  53,617

  West Mercia

  62,268

  68,707

  77,230

  82,670

  89,633

  95,733

  97,860

  102,078

  107,788

  112,879

  West Midlands

  206,518

  229,256

  250,816

  284,274

  292,273

  303,279

  331,203

  337,992

  360,129

  372,296

  West Yorkshire

  167,025

  181,186

  197,226

  208,784

  219,225

  225,767

  251,579

  265,233

  281,745

  280,739

  Wiltshire

  35,676

  40,885

  46,215

  51,400

  53,547

  58,886

  59,359

  59,993

  58,535

  66,666

  Total

  4,113,701

  4,523,819

  5,020,159

  5,452,989

  5,766,857

  6,028,842

  6,469,266

  6,619,778

  6,870,093

  7,220,676

  1Estimate

  Sources:

  1989–90 to 1994–95 From Home Office Police Grant Claims Forms.

  1995–96 to 1997–98 From CIPFA Police Statistics Actuals

  1998–99 From CIPFA Police Statistics Estimates

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown, by

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police1, in England and Wales

  Police force area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Avon and Somerset

  95,277

  97,357

  124,177

  151,071

  173,068

  173,988

  165,765

  150,659

  153,878

  141,650

  Bedfordshire

  38,707

  40,257

  52,862

  56,597

  59,008

  58,445

  52,062

  50,295

  51,283

  46,845

  Cambridgeshire

  33,238

  36,449

  44,035

  57,396

  65,406

  65,327

  61,294

  67,103

  68,204

  58,768

  Cheshire

  45,962

  44,858

  51,627

  61,901

  76,183

  77,414

  72,516

  71,427

  64,295

  58,734

  Cleveland

  55,244

  57,667

  70,622

  74,424

  80,111

  73,012

  75,248

  73,447

  72,987

  56,618

  Cumbria

  26,091

  27,177

  31,922

  42,627

  43,007

  41,537

  40,039

  39,071

  37,603

  33,990

  Derbyshire

  40,133

  45,371

  56,557

  71,853

  83,439

  87,798

  83,485

  80,610

  77,364

  72,159

  Devon and Cornwall

  71,534

  75,456

  90,403

  106,926

  113,413

  120,262

  108,780

  101,332

  102,390

  94,174

  Dorset

  34,896

  38,907

  47,282

  51,081

  51,767

  51,726

  53,780

  53,344

  48,586

  42,896

  Durham

  39,937

  41,692

  49,957

  60,717

  62,107

  62,759

  59,768

  52,966

  47,428

  44,413

  Essex

  69,471

  74,820

  93,544

  106,109

  112,883

  112,253

  103,683

  95,983

  98,608

  88,293

  Gloucestershire

  33,196

  34,533

  41,772

  55,317

  60,102

  60,813

  60,260

  55,364

  53,520

  47,399

  Greater Manchester

  271,599

  272,722

  312,332

  353,177

  366,538

  342,221

  311,718

  299,412

  299,262

  283,075

  Hampshire

  89,039

  95,616

  116,773

  140,182

  149,806

  143,920

  138,004

  130,743

  132,647

  121,806

  Hertfordshire

  39,229

  40,504

  45,166

  54,629

  58,289

  56,099

  54,173

  55,211

  53,742

  49,413

  Humberside

  81,543

  87,672

  101,279

  116,115

  126,110

  138,882

  134,847

  127,439

  125,993

  120,333

  Kent

  74,565

  79,530

  99,179

  134,197

  155,176

  158,143

  151,996

  152,603

  142,335

  119,116

  Lancashire

  83,443

  77,209

  92,985

  106,045

  115,741

  116,672

  109,669

  109,405

  108,365

  109,344

  Leicestershire

  49,286

  53,859

  71,981

  88,890

  96,419

  98,364

  97,483

  92,174

  92,812

  80,257

  358
  police force area, of the number of crimes (a) recorded and (b) detected, in each of the last 10 years. [67585]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information is given in tables
  359

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police1, in England and Wales

  Police force area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Lincolnshire

  31,193

  34,299

  38,034

  43,678

  47,956

  51,378

  46,467

  46,431

  44,450

  40,195

  City of London

  6,485

  7,040

  7,072

  7,551

  6,755

  5,604

  5,261

  5,704

  4,815

  5,129

  Merseyside

  136,549

  129,056

  129,876

  143,247

  144,087

  138,344

  135,501

  151,901

  144,410

  125,979

  Metropolitan Police District

  698,323

  733,050

  810,443

  883,934

  890,845

  848,407

  780,821

  745,179

  827,327

  782,387

  Norfolk

  41,145

  43,844

  53,982

  63,575

  66,638

  64,081

  55,880

  51,295

  54,831

  52,929

  Northamptonshire

  36,922

  38,214

  47,392

  57,756

  58,871

  59,307

  57,298

  56,098

  56,390

  53,121

  Northumbria

  153,108

  171,733

  190,248

  208,888

  203,836

  192,595

  180,039

  171,408

  145,542

  126,965

  North Yorkshire

  32,863

  34,190

  44,465

  49,869

  52,869

  55,175

  58,703

  59,643

  53,962

  48,096

  Nottinghamshire

  91,006

  101,058

  128,548

  145,903

  159,807

  153,415

  145,584

  144,580

  136,623

  123,370

  South Yorkshire

  85,037

  90,184

  102,161

  118,972

  132,699

  153,001

  152,451

  149,764

  146,862

  126,754

  Staffordshire

  54,754

  57,596

  70,718

  84,296

  96,988

  97,801

  93,178

  90,936

  91,472

  88,644

  Suffolk

  28,914

  30,917

  36,451

  39,175

  43,846

  42,289

  38,440

  37,357

  36,219

  34,788

  Surrey

  31,264

  33,019

  41,681

  49,252

  52,866

  52,197

  46,556

  43,759

  41,397

  37,840

  Sussex

  66,093

  74,060

  93,418

  110,931

  117,778

  106,371

  103,548

  105,985

  112,381

  106,475

  Thames Valley

  106,332

  118,377

  145,977

  185,262

  196,074

  198,773

  184,852

  177,345

  170,523

  156,368

  Warwickshire

  22,656

  24,945

  32,419

  40,091

  44,630

  45,126

  42,272

  38,641

  38,674

  35,527

  West Mercia

  46,412

  49,211

  59,332

  71,420

  77,489

  80,701

  81,669

  78,298

  80,994

  75,386

  West Midlands

  230,417

  222,366

  257,814

  294,704

  321,407

  323,175

  308,207

  312,643

  307,115

  266,474

  West Yorkshire

  166,195

  179,185

  227,631

  288,745

  300,738

  299,580

  288,449

  283,044

  267,990

  243,373

  Wiltshire

  25,420

  26,636

  32,449

  38,276

  41,104

  40,564

  37,167

  35,617

  35,019

  32,350

  Dyfed-Powys

  18,288

  16,457

  19,568

  24,411

  26,554

  22,877

  19,758

  17,906

  17,404

  16,434

  Gwent

  23,309

  23,807

  30,169

  37,222

  39,994

  38,922

  37,312

  32,169

  43.143

  45,525

  North Wales

  33,830

  33,107

  36,153

  42,672

  47,811

  46,981

  42,537

  41,037

  40,384

  36,250

  South Wales

  111,269

  112,210

  133,176

  156,259

  163,270

  160,811

  155,927

  150,616

  139,147

  127,987

  Total

  3,550,174

  3,706,217

  4,363,632

  5,075,343

  5,383,485

  5,317,110

  5,032,447

  4,885,944

  4,868,376

  4,460,629

  1Excluding criminal damage £20 and under

  Notifiable offences cleared up 1, in England and Wales

  Police force area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Avon and Somerset

  34,627

  32,135

  35,395

  35,575

  28,806

  29,769

  34,226

  35,008

  37,590

  36,678

  Bedfordshire

  15,041

  13,592

  11,712

  10,948

  11,677

  12,110

  11,377

  11,142

  16,955

  16,368

  Cambridgeshire

  11,348

  13,707

  16,546

  20,588

  17,498

  16,375

  15,019

  12,626

  16,217

  15,904

  Cheshire

  23,076

  23,121

  25,667

  25,172

  21,899

  19,875

  22,049

  22,329

  22,178

  20,902

  Cleveland

  20,665

  21,029

  17,351

  24,817

  25,245

  19,758

  14,429

  18,180

  17,872

  14,630

  Cumbria

  13,198

  13,343

  13,855

  17,195

  15,749

  15,677

  14,657

  15,639

  13,386

  13,465

  Derbyshire

  15,077

  16,621

  18,228

  20,065

  18,612

  18,278

  17,891

  16,434

  16,175

  18,231

  Devon and Cornwall

  27,468

  26,848

  28,644

  31,019

  20,085

  30,534

  29,257

  27,771

  30,273

  29,826

  Dorset

  13,653

  16,520

  16,637

  21,091

  16,512

  17,073

  16,373

  14,765

  13,286

  12,491

  Durham

  17,527

  17,622

  16,818

  18,328

  18,761

  18,663

  19,041

  16,113

  14,174

  13,597

  Essex

  22,547

  23,814

  26,868

  33,518

  32,409

  35,991

  37,691

  31,404

  28,346

  23,943

  Gloucestershire

  13,087

  12,496

  13,819

  19,575

  14,275

  12,134

  14,493

  14,928

  12,240

  11,246

  Greater Manchester

  79,697

  82,227

  100,074

  126,464

  129,338

  116,938

  105,157

  71,314

  51,885

  55,940

  Hampshire

  30,220

  31,023

  37,253

  39,741

  39,154

  37,223

  36,905

  36,552

  36,892

  36,717

  Hertfordshire

  16,980

  17,678

  13,324

  18,239

  14,904

  12,039

  13,044

  15,270

  16,093

  15,947

  Humberside

  29,581

  31,073

  37,699

  36,648

  28,960

  22,399

  23,291

  24,347

  25,628

  23,779

  Kent

  26,921

  25,350

  24,370

  30,608

  41,962

  40,163

  43,338

  40,348

  45,139

  36,657

  Lancashire

  42,119

  31,011

  40,969

  42,563

  42,459

  41,211

  36,356

  37,607

  36,079

  32,256

  Leicestershire

  21,108

  21,345

  25,820

  25,574

  28,631

  27,391

  28,817

  26,924

  29,093

  27,410

  Lincolnshire

  13,094

  14,276

  16,449

  20,152

  18,514

  18,755

  15,062

  17,878

  18,648

  19,285

  City of London

  1,616

  1,424

  1,480

  1,526

  1,343

  1,225

  1,406

  1,325

  1,313

  1,340

  Merseyside

  61,718

  57,670

  57,452

  63,804

  60,825

  54,101

  45,328

  40,998

  42,174

  38,629

  Metropolitan Police

  120,515

  127,984

  137,075

  149,016

  142,746

  146,342

  175,105

  187,671

  193,678

  202,352

  Norfolk

  16,369

  17,671

  20,145

  23,281

  22,519

  17,664

  18,936

  15,758

  17,620

  19,503

  Northamptonshire

  16,829

  16,264

  16,711

  17,782

  17,797

  16,294

  17,595

  15,948

  19,015

  18,836

  Northumbria

  67,728

  67,880

  76,654

  73,796

  34,797

  38,227

  40,340

  39,034

  35,038

  33,332

  North Yorkshire

  12,693

  12,092

  17,726

  18,015

  17,247

  16,816

  14,542

  13,816

  13,703

  12,741

  Nottinghamshire

  34,334

  35,607

  44,711

  38,695

  41,312

  44,789

  40,708

  33,897

  37,890

  35,109

  South Yorkshire

  39,562

  39,222

  45,450

  42,582

  34,981

  30,247

  36,669

  35,589

  33,418

  36,801

  Staffordshire

  24,664

  24,874

  27,892

  31,534

  29,445

  28,602

  28,496

  29,179

  31,178

  31,185

  Suffolk

  12,783

  13,222

  14,842

  14,626

  17,086

  15,571

  13,603

  12,831

  11,891

  12,974

  Surrey

  10,618

  10,944

  11,050

  11,249

  11,596

  10,604

  14,119

  13,649

  12,061

  12,413

  Sussex

  19,885

  22,727

  24,534

  25,077

  26,935

  25,391

  24,991

  29,297

  32,320

  27,213

  Thames Valley

  36,481

  39,142

  38,175

  40,285

  38,199

  40,948

  41,174

  41,210

  42,383

  38,270

  Warwickshire

  8,906

  8,697

  9,504

  9,641

  10,451

  9,665

  10,202

  9,725

  9,332

  9,587

  West Mercia

  20,828

  19,290

  27,128

  25,232

  26,345

  23,035

  23,957

  21,971

  20,831

  21,126

  West Midlands

  97,784

  87,225

  92,723

  90,344

  85,305

  86,809

  77,531

  75,279

  72,038

  63,132

  West Yorkshire

  71,096

  68,512

  77,073

  79,663

  75,243

  54,073

  58,167

  59,012

  64,496

  66,038

  Wiltshire

  9,302

  12,158

  14,196

  15,460

  15,231

  14,395

  13,433

  11,455

  10,164

  10,451

  360

  361

  Notifiable offences cleared up 1, England and Wales

  Police force area

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Dyfed-Powys

  9,636

  8,637

  9,835

  12,261

  13,986

  11,518

  10,501

  10,147

  10,039

  10,024

  Gwent

  12,689

  12,839

  15,481

  17,487

  17,677

  17,411

  17,699

  16,093

  21,655

  23,157

  North Wales

  14,332

  14,644

  14,629

  15,523

  15,949

  16,899

  16,416

  13,336

  13,458

  12,163

  South Wales

  41,490

  43,403

  47,459

  44,731

  48,399

  45,173

  36,975

  43,076

  43,846

  46,585

  Total

  1,248,892

  1,246,959

  1,379,423

  1,479,490

  1,390,864

  1,328,155

  1,326,366

  1,276,875

  1,287,690

  1,258,233

  1 Clear-ups exclude Criminal damage £20 and under

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which he and Ministers in his Department have undertaken overseas

  Minister

  Dates

  Places visited

  Purpose of visit

  Secretary of State and Joyce Quin

  26 May 1997 to 27 May 1997

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting

  Joyce Quin

  9 June 1997 to 11 June 1997

  Prague

  Council of Europe Justice Ministers Meeting

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  15 September 1997 to 19 September 1997

  Paris, Germany, Oslo

  Fact-finding to look at procedures for investigating suspicious deaths, human rights and community sentences

  Alun Michael

  16 September 1997 to 18 September 1997

  New York

  Visit New York Cares Scheme and New York Police

  Joyce Quin

  17 September 1997

  Paris

  Debate at Ecole Nationale d'Administration

  Joyce Quin

  26 September 1997 to 28 September 1997

  Sienna

  Pontignano Conference

  Secretary of State and Joyce Quin

  9 October 1997 to 10 October 1997

  Luxembourg

  Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Joyce Quin

  20 October 1997 to 21 October 1997

  Strasbourg

  Meeting with MEPs prior to UK Presidency

  Secretary of State

  20 October 1997 to 21 October 1997

  Paris

  Meetings with French Interior Minister and Minister of Justice

  Joyce Quin

  4 November 1997 to 6 November 1997

  Stockholm

  Study of tagging and prison organisation

  Alun Michael

  16 November 1997 to 17 November 1997

  The Hague

  To present European Crime Prevention Awards and visit juvenile delinquents computer system and day training centre

  Joyce Quin

  3 December 1997 to 5 December 1997

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Alun Michael

  5 December 1997 to 8 December 1997

  Bosnia

  To visit British Police serving in Bosnia

  Secretary of State

  9 December 1997 to 10 December 1997

  Washington

  G8 Meeting on Organised Crime

  Mike O'Brien

  18 December 1997 to 19 December 1997

  Luxembourg

  Conference on European Year Against Racism

  Mike O'Brien

  4 January 1998 to 14 January 1998

  Pakistan, India, Bangladesh

  To observe entry clearance posts

  Secretary of State

  13 January 1998 to 14 January 1998

  Madrid

  Meetings with the Spanish,Minister of the Interior and Minister of Justice

  Secretary of State

  26 January 1998

  Brussels

  Meetings with the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee, the EPLP and the ELDR

  Joyce Quin

  28 January 1998

  Brussels

  To address the European Presidency Racism and Xenophobia Debate

  Secretary of State

  4 February 1998 to 6 February 1998

  Washington, USA

  Accompanying Prime Minister: Meetings with National Institute of Justice, Baltimore Police Department, Department of Justice and Attorney General Reno

  Mike O'Brien

  10 February 1998 to 11 February 1998

  Brussels

  To attend the 'Lets Kick Racism Out of Football' seminar

  362
  visits in the course of their ministerial duties since 1997; and if he will give details of the purpose and duration of each visit. [67746]

  Mr. Straw
  Home Office Ministerial visits overseas since 2 May 1997 are listed in the table:
  363

  Minister

  Dates

  Places visited

  Purpose of visit

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  15 February 1998 to 16 February 1998

  Paris

  To address the OECD Workshop on Global Network Society

  Joyce Quin

  8 March 1998 to 9 March 1998

  Prague

  To discuss EU enlargement

  Secretary of State and Joyce Quin

  18 March 1998 to 19 March 1998

  Brussels

  To attend Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  21 March 1998 to 25 March 1998

  Thailand

  To launch a UK funded course on Child Sex Exploitation

  Joyce Quin

  26 March 1998

  Amsterdam

  To address the Dutch Probation Conference

  Joyce Quin

  16 April 1998 to 17 April 1998

  Warsaw

  To discuss EU enlargement

  Joyce Quin

  21 April 1998 to 22 April 1998

  Vienna

  To address the UN Crime Commission

  Joyce Quin

  28 April 1998 to 1 May 1998

  Budapest

  To discuss EU enlargement

  Secretary of State

  14 May 1998

  Vienna

  Meetings with the Austrian Interior Minister and Minister of Justice

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  26 May 1998 to 27 May 1998

  Milan

  To visit the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM)

  Secretary of State and Joyce Quin

  27 May 1998 to 29 May 1998

  Brussels

  To attend the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting

  George Howarth

  7 June 1998 to 10 June 1998

  New York

  To attend the UN Special Session on Drugs

  Joyce Quin

  29 June 1998 to 30 June 1998

  Brussels

  To address the European Presidency Civil Liberties and Legal Affairs Committee

  George Howarth

  30 June 1998

  Brussels

  To address a meeting of the EU Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs Committees

  Secretary of State and Kate Hoey

  23 September 1998 to 24 September 1998

  Brussels

  To attend Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting

  Secretary of State

  15 October 1998 to 16 October 1998

  Avignon

  To attend and address a seminar on Family Law and Organised Crime

  Kate Hoey

  28 October 1998 to 30 October 1998

  Vienna

  Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Mike O'Brien

  3 November 1998 to 6 November 1998

  Ethiopia and Nigeria

  To attend entry clearance conference and observe entry clearance posts

  Kate Hoey

  4 November 1998 to 5 November 1998

  Strasbourg

  Council of Europe Ministers meeting on tackling organised crime

  Secretary of State and Kate Honey

  2 December 1998 to 4 December 1998

  Brussels

  To attend Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting

  Kate Hoey

  6 December 1998 to 8 December 1998

  Budapest

  Visit to firm up co-operation on organised crime following successful bid for twinning project

  Secretary of State

  27 January 1999

  Strasbourg

  To visit the European Court of Human Rights

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on 19 January 1999,Official Report, column 417, if he will list the occasions on which Ministers in his Department have used RAF flights since 1 May 1997. [67745]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on 19 November 1998,Official Report, columns 737–38, and 9 December 1998, Official Report, columns 213–14, which list the flights made between 2 May 1997 and 9 December 1998.
  364
  Since 10 December 1998, Ministers in this Department have used an RAF aircraft on one occasion, when I flew from Northolt to Culdrose and back this month, to open Falmouth Police Station.

  CS Spray
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times police forces have sent to his Department a written report on the circumstances of an operational use of CS spray for public order purposes since 1990. [67610]

  Mr. Boateng
  CS spray has only been in use since 1996 and is not intended for use in situations of serious public disorder. It is intended primarily for the personal
  365
  protection of police officers, and may be used in certain situations where suspects are disorderly either individually or in group situations and violence is threatened or likely. A written report has been obtained in one case, and information has been received about two others in which CS spray has been used, in response to public concern or inquiries from Members of Parliament and others.

  CS dispersed in smoke for use in situations of serious public disorder has been available to all police forces since 1968 for use as a tactical option. It has not been used in England and Wales during the time period in question.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances reports of the Police Complaints Authority into particular cases are made public; [67870]

  (2) what criteria are used to assess whether a report of the Police Complaints Authority into a specific complaint is made public; [67869]

  (3) how many reports of the Police Complaints Authority into specific complaints have been made public; and if he will list them. [67868]

  Mr. Boateng
  Complaint investigation reports are treated as confidential and are not published. The Police Complaints Authority is restricted by section 98 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 from publishing information received in the course of its work other than in the form of a general summary.

  In its report on police disciplinary and complaints procedures, published in December 1997, the Home Affairs Committee recommended that the terms of section 98 should be relaxed to give the Authority greater freedom to explain its work to complainants and the public. The Government accepted that recommendation and will implement it when legislative time permits.

  Under section 97(2) of the 1984 Act, the Police Complaints Authority may report to the Secretary of State on any matters coming to their notice to which they consider his attention should be drawn by reason of their gravity or other exceptional circumstances. The report is laid before Parliament and published. Only two such reports have been made by the Police Complaints Authority, concerning the investigation of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad and the Stephen Lawrence case.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make further appointments to the Police Complaints Authority. [68693]

  Mr. Straw
  I have recently appointed Mrs. Molly Meacher to the position of Deputy Chairman of the Authority, following the retirement of Mr. John Cartwright.

  Mrs. Meacher has served as a member of the Authority since 1994, and her previous posts include that of Adviser to the Chairman of the Russian Federal Employment Service; Mental Health Act Commissioner; Health Trust non-executive director; and director of Action Trust (now the Employment Policy Institute). Her appointment is for three years with effect from 1 February 1999.

  Roger Casement
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry to investigate whether the diaries of Roger Casement released by his Department during his trial were forgeries. [67866]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have not received any formal requests to review the case of Roger Casement, and currently have no plans to set up any such inquiry.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received in relation to the activities of Mr. X whose name has been provided to him; and if he will make a statement; [67873]

  (2) in what capacity Mr. X, whose name has been provided to him, has been (a) employed by and (b) served Her Majesty's Government. [67874]

  Mr. Straw
  The hon. Member's letter of 22 January gave insufficient information for me to be able to answer the Question and I have written to him accordingly.

  Diarmuid O'Neill
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what action is to be taken following the report of the Police Complaints Authority into the case of Diarmuid O'Neill. [67867]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that the report of the police investigation, which was supervised by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on 20 November. As at 26 January, no decisions had been taken by the CPS about bringing to criminal charges. No decision on disciplinary action will be taken by the PCA, and the Metropolitan Police, until the CPS have decided whether to institute criminal proceedings.

  Voluntary Sector Grants
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to publish the relevant statistics covering central Government department grants to the voluntary sector over the last two years. [67725]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information relating to grants made by Government Departments to the voluntary sector over the period 1995–96 to 1997–98 is currently being collected. The figures will be published in the Spring.

  Police Stations (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations there were in Wales in(a) 1976, (b) 1996 and (c) at the last available date. [67457]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. An alphabetical list of police
  367
  stations in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom can be found in the gazetteer of the Police and Constabulary Almanac, a copy of which is in the Library.

  An Audit Commission study of police force estates has been collecting information on the current number of police stations, by force, in England and Wales. The Report is due to be published in the Spring.

  Prison Deaths
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many self-inflicted deaths occurred in prisons in the last year; what action his Department is taking to reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths; and if he will make a statement. [67933]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There were 83 self-inflicted deaths in prisons in England and Wales last year (80 male, 3 female). The Government are committed to doing everything possible to try to reduce the incidence of self-inflicted deaths in prisons. My noble Friend Lord Williams chairs a regular meeting between the Prison Service and a range of representatives from interested groups including: the Samaritans; Howard League; Prison Reform Trust; Inquest; and the Board of Visitors, to discuss how they can work more closely together. We welcome the current thematic review of suicide and self-harm conducted by Her Majesty Chief Inspector of Prisons, the report of which is soon to be published. We look forward to any recommendations he has in this important area of work.

  The Prison Service is developing a range of additional measures including: identifying and dissemination of good practice by reintroducing a suicide awareness bulletin; reviewing screening and induction processes to identify those prisoners at risk more effectively so that they can be cared for appropriately; reviewing the use of unfurnished cells for the suicidal; improving cell design to provide a safer environment; identifying alternatives to the use of strip cell conditions in the care of the suicidal; and conducting further research into suicide and self-harm.

  The Prison Service is also increasing the involvement of external interest groups through a regular working group and in projects and research into suicides. There has been for some time a close working relationship with the Samaritans, who of course have a great deal of expertise in this area. Listener schemes, whereby

  Education and work by prision 1995–98

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  Education

  Work

  Education

  Work

  Education

  Work

  Acklington

  2.8

  17.9

  3.5

  17.6

  3.3

  16.9

  Albany

  3.9

  17.2

  2.5

  13.5

  4.9

  16.3

  Aldington

  5.4

  22.5

  5.0

  22.0

  —

  —

  Ashwell

  6.5

  21.1

  6.7

  20.5

  7.5

  20.0

  Askham Grange

  9.6

  10.0

  8.6

  9.3

  9.0

  17.8

  Aylesbury

  6.3

  7.9

  6.7

  9.1

  8.1

  9.3

  Bedford

  3.6

  17.5

  3.8

  19.7

  4.1

  19.3

  Belmarsh

  2.3

  7.5

  2.0

  8.4

  2.3

  10.7

  Birmingham

  0.9

  8.7

  1.1

  10.2

  1.8

  11.9

  Blakenhurst

  3.5

  10.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blantyre House

  7.3

  11.9

  8.3

  12.9

  9.4

  12.7

  Blundeston

  5.9

  13.9

  5.8

  12.6

  4.9

  12.6

  Brinsford

  2.0

  8.4

  2.7

  9.0

  3.7

  10.4

  Bristol

  1.2

  13.8

  0.7

  13.6

  1.7

  15.0

  Brixton

  1.2

  11.6

  1.5

  11.1

  1.9

  1.1

  Brockhill

  7.0

  16.3

  6.2

  19.4

  6.6

  21.5

  368
  prisoners offer support to fellow prisoners, are now established in over two thirds of prisons in England and Wales, the majority of which are supported by the Samaritans.

  In addition, instructions and guidance to staff on caring for the suicidal are being re-examined and are soon to be issued as a new Prison Service Order.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations there were, per police force, in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [67918]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. An alphabetical list of police stations in the United Kingdom can be found in the gazetteer of the Police and Constabulary Almanac, a copy of which is in the Library.

  An Audit Commission study of police force estates has been collecting information on the current number of police stations, by force, in England and Wales. The Report is due to be published in the Spring.

  Prisoners (Activities)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average level of purposeful activity per week undertaken by inmates, broken down into(a) education and training, (b) work and (c) rehabilitation programmes, in each prison service establishment, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [67917]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the average weekly time spent in purposeful activity by prisoners in each establishment for each of the last three years is given in the table.

  Work is defined as time spent in support to works and maintenance staff, workshops, farms, gardens, kitchens and other domestic work. Education and training includes daytime education, vocational training courses, construction and industrial training courses and evening education classes. The Prison Service does not record separately time spent engaged in rehabilitation programmes.

  369

  Education and work by prison 1995–98

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  Education

  Work

  Education

  Work

  Education

  Work

  Bullingdon

  5.4

  6.8

  5.6

  8.2

  5.9

  10.8

  Bullwood Hall

  8.5

  10.5

  9.0

  11.6

  10.4

  12.8

  Camp Hill

  4.6

  11.8

  6.2

  14.5

  7.2

  15.4

  Canterbury

  3.3

  7.2

  4.1

  8.7

  5.9

  10.3

  Cardiff

  1.9

  17.2

  1.8

  17.1

  2.3

  17.1

  Castington

  6.2

  10.9

  5.5

  10.8

  6.9

  11.3

  Channings Wood

  5.5

  13.8

  5.3

  14.4

  6.8

  17.0

  Chelmsford

  1.2

  10.0

  1.8

  11.4

  2.2

  11.1

  Coldingley

  3.9

  29.5

  2.7

  26.1

  3.1

  20.2

  Cookham Wood

  4.7

  16.4

  4.8

  16.0

  3.5

  7.9

  Dartmoor

  3.4

  12.7

  3.4

  13.3

  4.7

  14.0

  Deerbolt

  8.5

  8.4

  8.5

  8.4

  9.0

  8.5

  Dorchester

  1.9

  10.8

  2.8

  12.8

  3.4

  14.2

  Dover

  6.6

  9.9

  7.5

  10.6

  8.0

  11.4

  Downview

  5.3

  17.9

  5.0

  17.5

  5.7

  16.8

  Drake Hall

  4.9

  23.8

  4.6

  23.5

  5.9

  22.8

  Durham

  2.9

  8.4

  2.4

  8.8

  2.8

  9.5

  East Sutton Park

  8.2

  19.0

  7.6

  19.1

  8.4

  18.0

  Eastwood Park

  6.1

  10.6

  7.0

  12.0

  —

  —

  Elmley

  2.9

  10.6

  2.9

  11.3

  4.4

  11.8

  Erlestoke

  7.3

  13.8

  7.0

  14.2

  8.3

  15.8

  Everthorpe

  8.5

  13.7

  9.3

  10.9

  11.2

  15.3

  Exeter

  1.7

  7.8

  1.6

  7.9

  1.8

  10.4

  Featherstone

  2.8

  15.1

  3.5

  15.9

  4.2

  19.0

  Feltham

  2.5

  9.8

  2.5

  11.3

  3.0

  14.3

  Ford

  6.2

  17.1

  6.5

  17.3

  5.8

  16.8

  Foston Hall

  6.9

  13.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Frankland

  3.7

  10.1

  3.9

  11.1

  4.3

  11.6

  Full Sutton

  4.7

  9.4

  5.1

  12.6

  5.6

  14.9

  Garth

  4.7

  11.9

  3.6

  11.8

  4.3

  12.7

  Gartree

  5.2

  14.7

  5.1

  14.0

  6.2

  16.0

  Glen Parva

  3.5

  7.8

  3.4

  9.0

  3.9

  7.8

  Gloucester

  3.7

  10.0

  3.4

  11.0

  2.8

  10.2

  Grendon

  2.2

  10.8

  2.3

  12.9

  3.4

  14.3

  Guys Marsh

  7.2

  20.0

  9.0

  16.9

  9.4

  19.0

  Haslar

  5.3

  9.2

  8.2

  9.7

  9.2

  11.4

  Hatfield

  10.6

  16.2

  9.5

  21.3

  9.8

  20.4

  Haverigg

  3.4

  23.4

  3.1

  23.7

  4.9

  23.4

  Hewell Grange

  9.8

  21.1

  9.6

  20.8

  8.5

  21.2

  Highdown

  3.6

  7.6

  4.3

  8.9

  6.1

  9.9

  Highpoint

  4.9

  9.5

  3.0

  9.0

  5.8

  12.2

  Hindley

  8.0

  9.9

  6.8

  10.2

  6.5

  11.8

  Hollesley Bay

  3.4

  24.1

  3.4

  23.6

  9.3

  10.7

  Holloway

  3.5

  10.1

  3.3

  8.7

  3.4

  7.7

  Holme House

  2.6

  8.1

  3.2

  9.0

  4.0

  8.5

  Hull

  3.5

  12.1

  4.5

  12.8

  5.5

  14.9

  Huntercombe

  7.9

  11.0

  7.6

  10.9

  7.3

  7.0

  Kingston

  4.5

  20.7

  5.3

  19.9

  5.2

  21.8

  Kirkham

  4.6

  34.4

  4.7

  29.7

  4.8

  29.9

  Kirklevington

  2.9

  11.5

  2.9

  13.8

  5.0

  35.9

  Lancaster

  6.8

  11.1

  6.1

  10.3

  7.0

  14.6

  Lancaster Farms

  6.3

  7.6

  6.2

  6.8

  8.2

  5.5

  Latchmere House

  1.1

  14.4

  1.2

  14.0

  2.8

  10.1

  Leeds

  1.5

  11.0

  1.2

  11.5

  1.4

  11.5

  Leicester

  2.3

  15.6

  2.3

  15.7

  2.4

  18.0

  Lewes

  2.5

  11.1

  3.4

  14.9

  3.3

  14.6

  Leyhill

  4.7

  28.8

  4.6

  28.2

  4.7

  28.6

  Lincoln

  1.4

  16.0

  1.9

  13.7

  2.2

  15.3

  Lindholme

  5.0

  11.6

  5.4

  13.1

  6.0

  14.7

  Littlehey

  7.0

  18.1

  7.8

  18.1

  8.4

  19.3

  Liverpool

  1.9

  13.1

  1.7

  14.5

  1.8

  13.9

  Long Lartin

  3.5

  9.1

  4.2

  11.1

  4.9

  12.8

  Low Newton

  6.1

  11.6

  6.8

  12.7

  7.2

  10.5

  Maidstone

  2.8

  15.7

  3.1

  12.3

  3.5

  13.7

  Manchester

  2.5

  19.5

  1.8

  15.7

  1.6

  15.1

  Moorland

  7.7

  12.2

  6.7

  12.2

  6.6

  13.6

  Morton Hall

  9.0

  18.3

  9.6

  19.5

  11.4

  18.4

  Mount

  4.5

  8.5

  5.5

  8.4

  7.2

  13.0

  New Hall

  5.1

  14.8

  6.5

  17.1

  8.1

  17.6

  North Sea Camp

  6.4

  27.4

  7.2

  25.6

  —

  —

  Northallerton

  4.0

  5.3

  3.3

  6.4

  4.7

  13.5

  Norwich

  3.3

  11.8

  4.0

  8.4

  6.6

  11.7

  370

  371

  Education and work by prison 1995–98

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  Education

  Work

  Education

  Work

  Education

  Work

  Nottingham

  2.8

  9.9

  5.8

  13.3

  7.1

  13.8

  Onley

  5.8

  9.4

  5.3

  8.9

  6.0

  9.3

  Parkhurst

  2.9

  13.3

  2.6

  11.6

  3.2

  10.3

  Pentonville

  1.5

  14.0

  1.1

  12.5

  1.7

  9.9

  Portland

  8.3

  8.1

  9.0

  9.2

  9.4

  10.5

  Preston

  1.4

  10.5

  1.6

  12.4

  1.6

  11.9

  Ranby

  5.5

  19.6

  4.6

  20.0

  5.3

  21.2

  Reading

  2.3

  10.5

  2.5

  12.4

  4.6

  14.4

  Risley

  4.6

  14.6

  4.8

  15.0

  6.2

  16.7

  Rochester

  1.3

  9.7

  3.5

  10.2

  5.7

  11.4

  Send

  5.8

  22.7

  4.9

  21.8

  4.4

  22.2

  Shepton Mallet

  6.3

  13.0

  7.1

  13.4

  7.0

  13.0

  Shrewsbury

  2.7

  11.6

  3.0

  10.5

  2.6

  8.6

  Stafford

  4.7

  16.0

  4.5

  16.8

  4.3

  18.4

  Standford Hill

  4.2

  26.3

  4.4

  25.3

  4.8

  24.4

  Stocken

  6.6

  13.3

  7.3

  14.5

  7.7

  18.4

  Stoke Heath

  4.6

  11.6

  5.1

  14.1

  4.7

  14.4

  Styal

  6.3

  17.8

  5.9

  19.3

  6.9

  21.9

  Sudbury

  6.9

  17.5

  7.7

  16.4

  8.3

  17.8

  Swaleside

  5.6

  11.2

  4.7

  10.4

  4.9

  10.2

  Swansea

  2.6

  11.0

  2.5

  11.8

  2.8

  13.9

  Swinfen Hall

  8.3

  11.1

  7.9

  11.9

  9.9

  13.4

  Thorn Cross

  12.8

  10.1

  12.7

  8.8

  12.6

  19.3

  Usk

  9.1

  16.8

  8.8

  18.5

  9.1

  17.8

  Verne

  7.4

  19.8

  7.2

  20.1

  8.1

  18.5

  Wakefield

  3.8

  11.7

  3.9

  11.6

  4.1

  13.4

  Wandsworth

  0.8

  15.0

  1.3

  16.2

  2.1

  14.5

  Wayland

  6.1

  11.4

  7.2

  10.8

  8.3

  11.8

  Wealstun

  7.1

  15.5

  7.9

  15.9

  9.1

  15.2

  Weare

  4.1

  9.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wellingborough

  11.1

  7.3

  10.8

  8.0

  12.1

  9.1

  Werrington

  10.2

  18.2

  11.3

  18.3

  12.7

  18.1

  Wetherby

  10.3

  9.6

  11.6

  11.8

  12.4

  13.1

  Whatton

  11.5

  14.1

  11.7

  14.9

  11.5

  15.6

  Whitemoor

  4.3

  10.1

  5.0

  11.3

  5.8

  9.8

  Winchester

  2.3

  11.9

  2.3

  12.8

  2.9

  14.6

  Wolds

  9.5

  12.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Woodhill

  2.9

  6.8

  3.2

  7.2

  3.5

  7.6

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0.8

  10.4

  1.1

  9.6

  2.0

  10.8

  Wymott

  3.7

  26.3

  4.4

  24.5

  4.6

  27.3

  Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review those terms of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 which were not incorporated into the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, with special reference to the provisions relating to conspiracies other than terrorist conspiracies; and if he will make a statement. [67930]

  Mr. Boateng
  Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 requires the Secretary of State to lay before the House at least once in every 12 months a report on the working of the Act. The provisions relating to conspiracy in sections 5–7 of the 1998 Act will be reviewed separately from the other provisions. The appointment of an independent reviewer of these provisions is currently under consideration and an announcement on the appointment will be made in due course.

  Prisons
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons he has jurisdiction for,372
  setting out (a) the number of places the prisons were originally built for, (b) the number of inmates currently in each prison and (c) the percentage overcrowding. [67952]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The table lists the certified normal accommodation, population and percentage overcrowding at each prison establishment for which the Home Secretary has jurisdiction on 18 December 1998.

  The Prison Service uses the concept of certified normal accommodation (CNA) to define the uncrowded capacity of each establishment. For prisons built in recent years, this is equivalent to original capacity. The CNA measures can also be applied to older prisons, particularly those built in the last century, whose original capacity is no longer relevant because of significant building and or modernisation work.

  Certified normal accommodation, population and percentage overcrowding by prison on 18 December 1998

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation

  Population

  Percentage overcrowding

  Acklington

  662

  651

  —

  Albany

  436

  427

  —

  Aldington

  145

  138

  —

  Altcourse

  600

  690

  115

  Ashwell

  484

  491

  101

  373

  Certified normal accommodation, population and percentage overcrowding by prison on 18 December 1998

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation

  Population

  Percentage overcrowding

  Askham Grange

  130

  127

  —

  Aylesbury

  439

  374

  —

  Bedford

  352

  373

  106

  Belmarsh

  820

  809

  —

  Birmingham

  734

  1,063

  145

  Blakenhurst

  647

  830

  128

  Blantyre House

  120

  119

  —

  Blundeston

  424

  346

  —

  Brinsford

  477

  490

  103

  Bristol

  487

  574

  118

  Brixton

  809

  728

  —

  Brockhill

  145

  145

  100

  Buckley Hall

  350

  383

  109

  Bullingdon

  773

  872

  113

  Bullwood Hall

  140

  132

  —

  Camphill

  429

  480

  112

  Canterbury

  196

  284

  145

  Cardiff

  525

  662

  126

  Castington

  330

  314

  —

  Channings Wood

  482

  598

  124

  Chelmsford

  357

  355

  —

  Coldingley

  298

  287

  —

  Cookham Wood

  120

  163

  136

  Dartmoor

  701

  651

  —

  Deerbolt

  432

  401

  —

  Doncaster

  771

  1,050

  136

  Dorchester

  147

  222

  151

  Dover

  316

  313

  —

  Downview

  327

  342

  105

  Drake Hall

  295

  269

  —

  Durham

  592

  890

  150

  East Sutton Park

  94

  85

  —

  Eastwood Park

  255

  270

  106

  Elmley

  760

  931

  123

  Erlestoke

  310

  310

  100

  Everthorpe

  438

  467

  107

  Exeter

  314

  487

  155

  Featherstone

  599

  596

  —

  Feltham

  849

  887

  104

  Ford

  462

  443

  —

  Foston Hall

  130

  132

  102

  Frankland

  529

  520

  —

  Full Sutton

  584

  595

  102

  Garth

  633

  646

  102

  Gartree

  366

  368

  101

  Glen Parva

  720

  836

  116

  Gloucester

  235

  293

  125

  Grendon

  241

  222

  —

  Guys Marsh

  487

  518

  106

  Haslar

  160

  155

  —

  Hatfield

  180

  157

  —

  Haverigg

  530

  546

  103

  Hewell Grange

  203

  198

  —

  Highdown

  649

  785

  121

  Highpoint

  680

  690

  101

  Hindley

  494

  440

  —

  Hollesley Bay

  398

  364

  —

  Holloway

  517

  520

  101

  Holme House

  971

  958

  —

  Hull

  556

  506

  —

  Huntercombe

  368

  368

  100

  Kingston

  193

  165

  —

  Kirkham

  702

  596

  —

  Kirklevgton

  180

  177

  —

  Lancaster

  218

  216

  —

  Lancaster Farms

  496

  465

  —

  Latchmere House

  193

  172

  —

  Leeds

  1,056

  1,232

  117

  Leicester

  219

  348

  159

  Lewes

  485

  478

  —

  Leyhill

  410

  377

  —

  Lincoln

  350

  441

  126

  Lindholme

  686

  681

  —

  Littlehey

  624

  641

  103

  Liverpool

  1,216

  1,473

  121

  374

  Certified normal accommodation, population and percentage overcrowding by prison on 18 December 1998

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation

  Population

  Percentage overcrowding

  Long Lartin

  379

  347

  —

  Low Newton

  149

  217

  146

  Lowdham Grange

  504

  498

  —

  Maidstone

  551

  569

  103

  Manchester

  953

  1,143

  120

  Moorland

  740

  767

  104

  Morton Hall

  208

  202

  —

  Mount

  588

  623

  106

  New Hall

  327

  367

  112

  North Sea Camp

  197

  181

  —

  Northallerton

  152

  250

  164

  Norwich

  562

  696

  124

  Nottingham

  493

  459

  —

  Onley

  640

  615

  —

  Parc

  800

  810

  101

  Parkhurst

  482

  393

  —

  Pentonville

  897

  1,091

  122

  Portland

  516

  576

  112

  Frescoed

  120

  87

  —

  Preston

  398

  679

  171

  Ranby

  710

  736

  104

  Reading

  203

  227

  112

  Risley

  871

  857

  —

  Rochester

  433

  381

  —

  Send

  80

  78

  —

  Shepton Mallet

  162

  217

  134

  Shrewsbury

  166

  298

  180

  Spring Hill

  256

  248

  —

  Stafford

  627

  623

  —

  Standford Hill

  384

  318

  —

  Stockken

  556

  576

  104

  Stoke Heath

  646

  613

  —

  Styal

  412

  282

  —

  Sudbury

  511

  510

  100

  Swaleside

  632

  622

  —

  Swansea

  251

  316

  126

  Swinfen Hall

  319

  293

  —

  Thron Cross

  316

  222

  —

  Usk

  128

  203

  159

  Verne

  552

  571

  103

  Wakefield

  562

  573

  102

  Wandsworth

  1,171

  1,300

  111

  Wayland

  620

  630

  102

  Wealstun

  632

  607

  —

  Weare

  400

  361

  —

  Wellingborough

  368

  328

  —

  Werrington

  188

  104

  —

  Wetherby

  360

  332

  —

  Whatton

  267

  263

  —

  Whitemoor

  522

  507

  —

  Winchester

  463

  609

  132

  Wolds

  360

  404

  112

  Woodhill

  672

  720

  107

  Wormwood Scrubs

  946

  967

  102

  Wymott

  809

  794

  —

  Police Officers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers have had their application for early retirement on health grounds refused during the past 12 months for each police authority in England and Wales; [67785]

  (2) how many police officers have applied for early retirement on health grounds whose applications have not yet been determined for each police authority in England and Wales. [67786]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not held centrally.

  Police Officers (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers currently on sick leave have had their pay(a) reduced by 50 per cent. and (b) stopped altogether for each police authority in England and Wales. [67787]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally, and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Officers (Years of Service)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of police officers in post have more than 25 years' service for each police authority in England and Wales. [67789]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally, and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Greater London Police Authority
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual cost of the proposed new police authority for Greater London. [67791]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government have made no estimate of the annual cost of the proposed new police authority for London. In line with the position outside London, the costs of the Metropolitan Police Authority will be borne out of the budget it receives for the policing of the Metropolitan Police District.

  Police Officers (Over 50)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing(a) the number and (b) the percentage of officers in post aged 50 years and over for each police authority in England and Wales. [67788]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not collected centrally, and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the percentage of revenue budget apportioned to the payment of police pensions for each police authority in England and Wales. [67790]

  Mr. Boateng
  Estimates of police pension costs for 1998–99 are set out in the table.

  Estimates of net police pension costs—1998–99

  £000

  Police authority

  Net pension costs

  Net revenue expenditure

  Percentage of net expenditure

  Avon and Somerset

  26,877

  167,417

  16.1

  Bedfordshire

  6,982

  62,317

  11.2

  Cambridgeshire

  8,463

  71,230

  11.9

  Cheshire

  11,580

  106,523

  10.9

  City of London

  8,291

  60,862

  13.6

  Cleveland

  11,108

  82,282

  13.5

  Cumbria

  8,715

  63,000

  13.8

  376

  Estimates of net police pension costs—1998–99

  £000

  Police authority

  Net pension costs

  Net revenue expenditure

  Percentage of net expenditure

  Derbyshire

  13,788

  100,894

  13.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  23,165

  167,117

  13.9

  Dorset

  9,486

  73,497

  12.9

  Durham

  10,166

  78,103

  13.0

  Dyfed Powys

  6,926

  52,609

  13.2

  Essex

  19,361

  168,889

  11.5

  Gloucestershire

  9,138

  63,780

  14.3

  Greater Manchester

  59,380

  371,497

  16.0

  Gwent

  7,712

  67,919

  11.4

  Hampshire

  20,009

  190,920

  10.5

  Hertfordshire

  9,499

  97,859

  9.7

  Humberside

  13,584

  111,587

  12.2

  Kent

  20,867

  178,916

  11.7

  Lancashire

  24,802

  178,051

  13.9

  Leicestershire

  12,566

  102,707

  12.2

  Lincolnshire

  10,057

  68,322

  14.7

  Merseyside

  37,483

  245,277

  15.3

  Metropolitan Police

  210,438

  1,778,001

  11.8

  Norfolk

  10,148

  82,339

  12.3

  North Wales

  11,138

  75,075

  14.8

  North Yorkshire

  12,162

  75,638

  16.1

  Northamptonshire

  7,067

  67,134

  10.5

  Northumbria

  31,500

  205,380

  15.3

  Nottinghamshire

  16,355

  124,828

  13.1

  South Wales

  24,861

  163,430

  15.2

  South Yorkshire

  17,248

  168,205

  10.3

  Staffordshire

  22,383

  122,540

  18.3

  Suffolk

  8,385

  65,785

  12.7

  Surrey

  11,021

  90,738

  12.1

  Sussex

  24,846

  162,664

  15.3

  Thames Valley Police

  20,306

  221,147

  9.2

  Warwickshire

  6,201

  53,617

  11.6

  West Mercia

  12,458

  112,879

  11.0

  West Midlands

  42,831

  372,296

  11.5

  West Yorkshire

  37,555

  280,739

  13.4

  Wiltshire

  7,480

  66,666

  11.2

  Total

  924,388

  7,220,676

  12.8

  Note:

  Taken from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics Estimates.

  Police Escorts
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cost in police time of escorting wide or exceptionally loaded vehicles for the last year for which figures are available for each police authority in England and Wales. [67792]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available centrally but it has been estimated by the Association of Chief Police Officers that the costs are over £7 million a year.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the review of the guidelines covering the use of plastic bullets will be completed; and when he will publish his conclusions. [67997]

  Mr. Boateng
  Consultation is continuing with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Royal Ulster Constabulary about whether any changes to the current Home Office guidances covering the use of baton rounds in England and Wales are required. Any such change will be announced in due course.
  377
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take action to abolish the use of plastic bullets as a means of riot control in the United Kingdom. [67998]

  Mr. Boateng
  The use of baton rounds is one tactical option available to police in dealing with situations of serious public disorder. There are no plans to remove this option from the police service in England and Wales, for which the Home Secretary has responsibility.

  MI5 (History)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make MI5's history of its operations from 1908 to 1945 available for commercial publication. [67981]

  Mr. Straw
  The Public Record Office released the first tranche of Security Service records relating to World War II on 27 January. Records relating to the period 1909–19 were released, in November 1997. The Security Service is reviewing the remaining records covering World War II and those for the inter-war years.

  Once released by the Public Record Office, such records are in the public domain but may be subject to copyright in the usual way.

  The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records, chaired by Lord Woolf, has recently conducted, at my request, a review of the criteria used by the Security Service in deciding whether to retain files on grounds of historical interest. I will be publishing their report and announcing my conclusions on their recommendations as soon as possible.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness and financial efficiency of the Commission for Racial Equality. [68186]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A study of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) was conducted by a senior Home Office official in July 1998 for budgetary purposes. This raised no serious concerns about the financial propriety of the CRE's expenditure of public money. It did, however, make recommendations to improve its business planning, including closer working links with the Home Office. Officials are in regular contact with the CRE and are taking these forward.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he met the former Commission for Racial Equality member, Mrs. Blondel Cluff; what detailed response he has made to the paper on the Commission for Racial Equality which she submitted to the Home Office; and if he will place a copy of his response to her paper in the Library. [68185]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I met Mrs. Cluff on 6 July 1998. At this meeting she passed me her report.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote a private letter to Mrs. Cluff thanking her for her service on the Commission. In this he said that her points on the role and philosophy of the Commission would help inform the Government's thinking on the future shape for race relations legislation.

SCOTLAND

  Spend-to-save Programme
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail by project of over £10,000 the moneys made available to local authorities under the spend-to-save programme for 1997–98; what projects have been earmarked for funding in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000, and how much funding has been allocated to each; what is the proposed total budget for the spend-to-save programme for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65935]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The spend-to-save scheme was introduced in 1997–1998 to allow councils flexibility between capital and revenue spending to deal with costs arising from reductions in revenue budgets. The spend-to-save initiatives and the amount of capital allocations surrendered for the purpose are entirely a matter for individual authorities. £37.3 million and £12.171 million was used in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively for spend-to-save purposes. There are no plans to continue the scheme beyond this year. From 1 July, local government finance will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  New Futures 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 under the New Futures Fund in the financial year 1997–98; if he will list 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. [65800]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The operational management of the New Futures Fund (NFF) is the responsibility of Scottish Enterprise (SE) and Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and I will ask their Chairmen to write to the hon. Member. The funding for the NFF is provided from within the financial allocations made to SE and HIE and as such will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

  Performance Pool Awards
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage of the NHS performance pool money announced by his Department on 18 March 1998 for NHS trusts which met waiting list targets which has been allocated; if he will give the value of such money distributed to each health trust; what criteria were used to make awards; and if he will publish the target levels for waiting lists for each health trust and the actual current level of waiting list. [65807]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: No allocations have yet been made from the money set aside to reward good performance by NHS Trusts in reducing waiting lists. The target levels for waiting lists reductions are held at Health Board level and are given in Table A. Waiting lists figures, by Health Board, at 30 September 1998 are set out in Table B. Waiting lists data, by Health

  379
  Board, is published quarterly, and the figures for 31 December 1998 are not yet available. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Table A: NHS in Scotland: Waiting lists to be met by 31 March 1999, by Health Board

  Health Board

  Target

  Argyll and Clyde

  7,304

  Ayrshire and Arran

  6,113

  Borders

  1,565

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,290

  Fife

  7,732

  Forth Valley

  4,308

  Grampian

  8,757

  Greater Glasgow

  13,307

  Highland

  3,380

  Lanarkshire

  9,525

  Lothian

  11,874

  Orkney

  184

  Shetland

  379

  Tayside

  7,336

  Western Isles

  450

  Table B: NHS in Scotland: Inpatient and day case waiting list, by Health Board, on 30 September 1998

  Health Board

  Number waiting

  Argyll and Clyde

  7,083

  Ayrshire and Arran

  5,916

  Borders

  1,497

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,137

  Fife

  8,109

  Forth Valley

  4,030

  Grampian

  9,583

  Greater Glasgow

  13,738

  Highland

  3,403

  Lanarkshire

  9,264

  Lothian

  10,701

  Orkney

  213

  Shetland

  413

  Tayside

  8,252

  Western Isles

  419

  Source:

  SMR3, ISD Scotland

  NHS Building Projects
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current building projects in the NHS, with the exception of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, of value greater than £100,000; which of these involve PFI contracts and what is the PH share of the cost of each project; what will be the(a) annual cost and (b) total cost to the public purse of each of these projects over the next five years, stating the amounts to be paid under PFI contracts; if he will list the property transfers made as part of the PFI contracts in each case; which of these buildings will be in public ownership; and if he will make a statement. [65933]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Other than the new Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, there are currently 35 building projects with a capital value greater than £100,000 under way in the NHSiS. These projects are listed as follows:

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary Service Reconfiguration

  Arbroath Infirmary Redevelopment

  Arran Day Hospital, Ailsa Hospital, Ayr

  Ashludie Community Hospital

  380

  Bo'ness Community Hospital

  Borders Mental Health Renewal Programme

  Crosshouse Hospital Service Developments

  Cumbernauld Health Centre

  Dumfries Community Extended Treatment Unit

  Dundee Dental Hospital Upgrade

  Dundee Limb Fitting Centre

  Dundee Palliative Care Day Hospital

  Edinburgh Western General Redevelopment

  3 Health Care Houses, Edinburgh

  Galashiels Health Centre

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary Maternity and Plastic Surgery
  Development

  Glasgow Southern General Neuroscience Ward Upgrade

  Glasgow Southern General Prosthetics Unit

  Glasgow Western General Infectious Diseases Unit

  Glasgow Western General Linear Accelerator Bunkers

  GP Premises in Orkney

  Hairmyres Hospital (DGH Replacement)

  IPCU and ICCU at St. John's, Livingston

  Law Hospital (DGH Replacement)

  Learning Disabilities Nursing Home, Edinburgh

  Lerwick Health Centre

  Old Irvine Road Clinic, Kilmarnock

  Renal Endoscopy Unit at Monklands Hospital

  Scalloway Health Centre

  Southern Isles Hospital, Balivanich

  Special Care Baby Unit at Ninewells, Dundee

  Stranraer Resource Centre

  Turriff Hospital

  Waverley Park, Glasgow

  Woodilee Hospital Reprovision.

  In addition, there may be other projects which fall within NHS Trust and Health Board delegated limits and for which information is not held centrally.

  Of these projects two are being procured through PFI, namely, the new Hairmyres Hospital and the new Law Hospital. The capital value of the facilities being procured through these projects is £67.5 million for Hairmyres Hospital and £100 million for Law Hospital. The facilities will be designed, built, financed and operated by the private sector and the NHS Trusts will enter into 25 to 30 year contracts for the use of the facilities.

  NHS Trusts pay capital charges (depreciation and a return on capital employed) on all publicly owned assets which they use. For facilities provided through the PFI, no capital charges will be paid but the Trust will instead pay the private sector provider for the use of the facility.

  No payments will be made to the PFI provider or costs incurred prior to the facility coming into use. Over the next 5 years the total running costs of the facility (including the cost of the PFI contract) and the PFI contract costs will be as detailed in the table.

  381

  £000

  New Hairmyres hospital

  New Law hospital Total

  Year

  Total running cost

  PFI contract

  Total running cost

  PFI contract

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2001–02

  50,545

  10,554

  61,356

  16,145

  2002–03

  44,694

  12,530

  74,409

  19,579

  2003–04

  44,563

  12,399

  76,641

  20,166

  Total

  139,802

  35,483

  212,406

  55,890

  As part of the PFI contract for the new Hairmyres Hospital 52 acres of surplus land at Hairmyres was included in the deal. No land transfers were included in the Law deal.

  Neither of the new facilities will be in public ownership.

  School Rationalisations
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by project of over £10,000 the moneys made available to local authorities for school rationalisations for the financial year 1997–98; what projects have been earmarked for funding in financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; how much funding has been allocated to each; what is the proposed total budget for school rationalisations for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [65930]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Under special arrangements, which apply only for financial year 1998–99, £15 million has been distributed to the eight authorities listed to assist them in improving the facilities and buildings at schools involved in rationalisation plans in their areas. The distribution of the resources is not tied to specific rationalisation projects. It is, of course, open to authorities to allocate funds from their general capital resources in support of school rationalisation. From 1 July 1999, local government finance, including local authorities' responsibilities for schools funding will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Authorities

  £000

  Aberdeen City

  525

  Argyll and Bute

  440

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  87

  Dundee City

  460

  East Ayrshire

  643

  Glasgow City

  12,000

  South Lanarkshire

  485

  West Lothian

  360

  New Housing Partnership
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of allocations of money over £10,000 made under the New Housing Partnership in the financial year 1997–98 indicating allocations over £10,000 already made under the New Housing Partnership for financial years 1998–99 and 382
  1999–2000, and further indicating (a) the amount allocated to running costs and (b) the total funds available for each of the next three financial years. [65954]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The information is contained in the table.

  New Housing Partnership Allocations

  £000

  Councils

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Aberdeen City

  367

  330

  Aberdeenshire

  223

  65

  Angus

  190

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  207

  —

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  146

  56

  Clackmannanshire

  157

  780

  Dumfries and Galloway

  276

  100

  Dundee City

  424

  3,275

  East Ayrshire

  306

  1,261

  East Dunbartonshire

  181

  68

  East Lothian

  186

  2,945

  East Renfrewshire

  157

  25

  Edinburgh City

  731

  7,718

  Falkirk

  360

  200

  Fife

  175

  125

  Glasgow City

  1,578

  9,415

  Highland

  306

  992

  Inverclyde

  241

  33

  Midlothian

  190

  —

  Moray

  162

  20

  North Ayrshire

  249

  82

  North Lanarkshire

  718

  1,752

  Orkney Islands

  120

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  231

  187

  Renfrewshire

  371

  93

  Scottish Borders

  167

  135

  Shetland Island

  127

  200

  South Ayrshire

  247

  —

  South Lanarkshire

  436

  750

  Stirling

  211

  311

  West Dunbartonshire

  285

  15

  West Lothian

  272

  2,630

  Allocations for New Housing Partnership projects have still to be made over the three years from 1999. It is not possible to differentiate between capital and running costs. Earmarked sums for each of the three years are:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  23

  2000–2001

  95

  2001–2002

  160

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

  NHS Modernisation Programme
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of allocations of money over £10,000 made under the modernisation programme for the NHS in Scotland announced on 5 November 1998 for financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000; and if he will give the total funds available for each of the next three financial years. [65810]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Modernisation Programme comes into effect from April 1999. No allocations have therefore, been made in

  383
  1998-99. £140 million is being made available for the modernisation programme in 1999–2000. The level of funds to be made available in 2000–01 and 2001–02 has still to be determined. Allocations for 1999–2000 have been made as follows:

  £ million

  Waiting list initiative

  44.5

  Bridging finance

  12.5

  GP staff and premises

  2.5

  Blood products etc.

  13.8

  Support for local health co-operatives

  13.5

  The balance of funds will be distributed over the next financial year. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Project Funding Allocation
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list broken down by year and amount for each of the next three financial years those projects of value greater than £50,000 which have been allocated funds from the money announced by press release by his Department on 17 March 1998; and what percentage of the money remains unallocated. [658061

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Scottish Office issued three news releases on 17 March 1998 about public expenditure allocations announcing an additional £44 million for the NHS in Scotland; £21 million of additional funding for education; and an increase of £4.5 million in funding for rural transport. From 1 July 1999 these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament. The information requested in relation to each of these is as follows:

  Health
  An additional £44.5 million has been added to the baseline of the NHS in Scotland specifically to tackle waiting lists.
  In 1999–2000, Health Boards will use these resources to provide full funding for 196 strategic projects established during the current year and designed to secure long-term, sustained reductions in waiting lists and waiting times. The Boards will be monitoring and auditing the progress and success of these projects and will allocate funding to them in 2000–01 and in subsequent years, as appropriate. I have arranged for a list, by Health Board, of the 104 projects which will cost in excess of £50,000 in 1999–2000 to be placed in the Library.

  Education
  Additional spending of £19 million for schools and child care was provided to local authorities in the current year under the normal allocation arrangements. Details are not available at this time of individual projects undertaken by those authorities. Additional funding of £1.4 million for further education was directed to colleges to assist in the transitional period following a change in funding methodology. No specific projects were involved in this allocation. Funding announced for the University for Industry (£880,000) will be utilised for the continued development costs of the project.

  Rural Transport
  £4.5 million per year for three years is being invested in the Rural Transport Funding Package. In 1998–99 £3.5 million has been earmarked for allocation to local authorities to provide additional public passenger transport services; it is for the local authorities to decide which public transport services they intend to fund and information about projects greater than £50,000 is not held centrally. The Scottish Office has issued 75 per cent. of the funding for this financial year; the remaining 25 per cent. is expected to be issued in the near future.
  384
  A further £600,000 has been earmarked in this financial year for community transport projects. The three community transport projects awarded grant amounts greater than £50,000, and the spread of payments over the three financial years involved, are listed in the table.

  Rural community transport projects greater than £50,000

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total

  Annandale Community Transport Project

  70,900

  6,750

  10,020

  87,670

  Handicabs (Mid/East Lothian)

  31,500

  15,000

  15,000

  61,500

  Handicabs (West Lothian)

  31,500

  15,000

  15,000

  61,500

  Grants of £240,000 to Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and £160,000 to Scottish Enterprise (SE) have been allocated to assist rural petrol stations in 1989–99. Decisions about the specific allocation of grant for individual projects are a matter for HIE, SE and the relevant Local Enterprise Companies.

  100 per cent. of the grant to local authorities for rural public passenger transport services and grant to assist rural petrol stations remains to be allocated in future years. 90 per cent. of the funding for rural community transport grant schemes remains available for allocation in future years.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail by project of over £10,000 and in total, the assistance given to Scottish businesses for research and development in 1997–98; what projects have been earmarked for funding in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000, and how much funding has been allocated to each; what is the proposed budget for research and development assistance for each of the next three financial years; and what percentage of this will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament. [659341

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: My Department provides research and development support for business through the SMART: SCOTLAND, SPUR and SPURPplus programmes, during 1997–98 and the current financial year also made payments to projects which are funded under the Regional Enterprise Grant for Innovation Scheme (which closed to applications on 31 December 1995).

  The European Commission, other Government Departments, including the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies are also actively involved in assisting projects which fall within their spheres of responsibility. Information on these latter categories of grants is not held by my Department.

  Total grant expenditure in 1997–98 on projects supported under SMART: SCOTLAND, SPUR, SPURPplus and Regional Enterprise Grant for Innovation Scheme amounted to £3.6 million. During the period 1 April 1998 to 31 December 1998 the equivalent expenditure amounted to £2.5 million. As details of how this expenditure is broken down between individual projects

  385
  of over £10,000 and of the funding allocated is lengthy, I have arranged for this information to be placed in the House Library.

  No specific projects have been earmarked for funding in 1999–2000 and in the remainder of the current financial year since grant offers are made in response to project proposals submitted to my Department by businesses which meet the qualifying criteria for support.

  The combined provision for SMART: SCOTLAND, SPUR and SPURplus in each of the next three financial years is £4.3 million. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Scottish Parliament Building
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the architect Enric Miralles on(a) the estimated date of completion of the Scottish Parliament's new building and (b) the cost overrun on the project. [66706]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: I and officials in the Holyrood Parliament Project Team have regular contact and meetings with Enric Miralles of EMBT/RMJM on a range of issues about the new building at Holyrood. The project remains on programme and the budget for the building continues to be £50 million excluding VAT and fees.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the allegations made by the project manager for the Scottish Parliament's new building that he was prevented from taking the action necessary to solve problems of building cost overrun. [66704]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: Comprehensive project monitoring and reporting arrangements are in place for the Holyrood building. The allegations attributed to the former project manager have been examined. I am satisfied that the project remains on programme. The budget for the building continues to be £50 million excluding VAT and fees.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the criteria used in calculating the initial estimated building cost for the Scottish Parliament; and what factors have led to an increase in cost since that estimate. [66703]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: The initial calculation of the estimated building cost for the Scottish Parliament new building was carried out by independent cost consultants. It was based on the feasibility studies produce for the four sites originally considered for the Scottish Parliament building. Appropriate unit rates were applied for different categories of use reflecting the need for varying standards of finish across the building.

  Detailed design work is being carried out by the architects for the building and cost consultants to monitor the implications. The budget for the building remains £50 million excluding VAT and fees.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports he has received from the project manager of the Scottish Parliament's new building as to the prospects for the building being completed on time. [66705]
  386
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: Arrangements are in place whereby I and officials in the Holyrood Parliament Project Team receive regular information about progress against programme for the Holyrood building. Work on site has begun and the target date for completion continues to be autumn 2001.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67845]

  Mr. Dewar
  All Scottish Office White and Green Papers are published on my Department's web site and can be easily accessed in large type face.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 27 January 1999, Official Report, column 296.

  Motorail Service
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to assist the proposed revival of the Motorail service to take to their destinations by rail the cars of visitors to Scotland or of Scottish residents visiting southern England or the continent. [66632]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: This is a private commercial venture and its success will depend on demand for the service. I understand that the company has been seeking assistance from various sources, including Scottish Enterprise, local enterprise companies in the Highlands and the Scottish Tourist Board. Any project which seeks to take traffic off the roads is commendable and I will continue to watch the progress of this proposal with interest. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the income to be raised by fees paid by students at Scottish universities and colleges in the current year and each of the next five years. [67501]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: Fees income for Scottish universities and colleges has been estimated for the years 1998–99—2001–02 only. Current estimates are set out in the table.

  Academic Year

  £ million1

  1998–99

  19

  1999–00

  32

  2000–01

  41

  2001–02

  46

  All figures at current prices

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

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. [68571]
  387
  Mr. Dewar
  I have appointed Dr. Elspeth Graham and Professor Gavin McCrone to the Boundary Commission for Scotland from 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2002.

  The other members of the Commission are:
  Madam Speaker—ex officio—Chairman;
  The hon. Lady Cosgrove, appointed as Deputy Chairman by the Lord President of the Court of Session from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1999.

  Live births (singleton and multiple)—Scotland

  Percentage delivered by caesarean section, year ending 31 March

  Health board—area of treatment

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Scotland

  14.4

  14.6

  15.2

  15.1

  15.8

  16.0

  16.5

  16.8

  17.5

  18.5

  Argyll and Clyde

  16.9

  16.2

  17.4

  16.9

  15.7

  15.4

  16.2

  18.0

  18.3

  21.0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  15.5

  16.3

  18.2

  17.2

  17.9

  18.2

  17.5

  18.8

  19.1

  20.4

  Borders

  14.0

  13.6

  17.9

  15.7

  16.1

  16.5

  16.0

  19.4

  20.9

  17.6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11.2

  12.3

  14.1

  12.5

  16.9

  15.6

  11.7

  13.7

  14.8

  17.8

  Fife

  11.3

  11.6

  10.7

  10.9

  11.6

  13.3

  15.2

  15.4

  14.9

  19.0

  Forth Valley

  12.7

  12.7

  13.8

  14.8

  15.2

  13.7

  15.8

  13.6

  15.3

  16.7

  Grampian

  11.8

  12.5

  12.4

  11.8

  13.0

  14.7

  15.4

  15.4

  17.4

  18.2

  Greater Glasgow

  15.3

  16.3

  16.4

  17.0

  17.8

  16.9

  18.0

  17.3

  18.1

  18.1

  Highland

  14.6

  13.2

  13.7

  15.2

  17.9

  15.6

  16.4

  18.0

  17.9

  19.9

  Lanarkshire

  14.7

  14.8

  16.1

  15.9

  16.6

  17.5

  17.8

  17.7

  18.4

  19.2

  Lothian

  15.5

  14.9

  15.1

  15.3

  16.1

  16.8

  16.7

  17.4

  17.5

  18.6

  Orkney

  14.2

  8.3

  9.0

  7.8

  10.6

  13.7

  12.2

  11.7

  16.9

  13.6

  Shetland

  7.3

  9.1

  2.2

  7.1

  8.1

  6.4

  4.7

  2.5

  2.9

  5.3

  Tayside

  13.6

  14.3

  14.6

  12.9

  13.4

  14.7

  15.7

  16.3

  16.4

  16.3

  Western Isles

  10.2

  9.7

  19.3

  18.1

  19.1

  18.3

  18.3

  19.3

  19.0

  18.1

  Notes:

  1. Prior to 1998, birth details were recorded only for the first two babies delivered. From 1998, where four or more babies are involved in a delivery, birth details are recorded for the first three babies delivered.

  2. In multiple deliveries individual babies may have different modes of delivery.

  Source:

  The information shown in the table has been extracted from the Scottish Morbidity Record (SMR02)—Maternity discharge.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the current number of pesticides approved for use in the UK; and how many have(a) full approval and (b) provisional approval; [66011]

  (2) how many of the pesticides in use in the UK which have only provisional approval have had this status for (a) one to three years, (b) three to five years and (c) more than five years; and if he will make a statement. [66010]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pesticide approvals for agricultural products are issued by the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD); approvals for other products are issued by the Health and Safety Executive. A total of 3,905 pesticide products were, at 1 January 1999, approved by PSD. Of these, 1,871 had full approval for at least one use; 2,034 had provisional approval.

  Pesticides may have more than one approval, each approval reflecting a different use. The 2,034 pesticides carrying provisional approval from the PSD had a total of

  Caesarean Births
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each of the last 10 years, the percentage of live births delivered by caesarean section within each health authority in Scotland. [67671]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is as follows:

  3,668 specific approvals on 1 January 1999. The age profile of these approvals was:

  Less than one year: 1,182

  One to three years: 1,735

  Three to five years: 408

  More than five years: 343.

  I have asked the Pesticides Safety Directorate to look closely at the reasons for the continuation of provisional approvals beyond three years to ensure that the highest standards of safety are being maintained.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment the Pesticides Safety Directorate has made of the safety of the use of pesticides in school grounds and playing fields. [66009]

  Rooker
  All pesticides, including those for use in school grounds and playing fields, are subject to strict statutory control. In considering the approval or review of a pesticide for use on amenity turf (including school playing fields and grounds), an assessment is made of the risk to people exposed to the treated area. Only if this assessment shows that there is no unacceptable risk to children and adults from the treatment will approval be granted or allowed to continue. Detailed advice covering the use of pesticides in such areas is set out in the Code of Practice for the Use of Approved Pesticides in Amenity and Industrial Areas (the Orange Code), produced by the British Agrochemicals Association and the National
  389
  Association of Agricultural Contractors. This Code has my full support as a contribution to good practice and safe use.

  Mite Contamination
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the member states of the European Union which have set maximum levels for mite contamination in food. [66018]

  Mr. Rooker
  No member state of the European Union has legislation which specifically sets maximum levels for mite contamination in food.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations have been commissioned by his Department to operate the Organic Conversion Information Scheme in the United Kingdom; for which parts of the service these organisations are responsible; and if he will make a statement on the current level of interest in the scheme. [67659]

  Mr. Morley
  The Organic Conversion Information Services operates in England and Wales and is funded by the relevant Agriculture Departments. It comprises a telephone "Helpline" operated by the Soil Association and free on-farm advisory visits provided by the Elm Farm Research Centre. On-farm visits are also made by ADAS in Wales.

  In Scotland, the Scottish Agricultural College is responsible for a telephone "Helpline". The advisory service in Northern Ireland is provided by the Department of Agriculture.

  There was a significant increase in the number of inquiries received during 1998 and so far in 1999 throughout the UK.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the relative(a) direct and (b) indirect (1) subsidies afforded to and (2) energy used by (i) organic and (ii) conventional agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [67716]

  Mr. Morley
  In common with farmers who pursue conventional farming methods, organic farmers benefit from general support delivered under the Common Agricultural Policy, largely through the commodity regimes. They may also claim support under the Organic Aid Scheme and, where eligible, certain other agri-environmental schemes. An assessment of direct energy costs in agriculture is made as part of the annual estimates of agricultural incomes prepared by the Ministry. This assessment does not, however, distinguish between organic and conventional agriculture. Such a comparison would need to be statistically sound to be of value. The current diversity and small scale of many organic farming enterprises would, therefore, restrict the value of any statistical comparisons.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the amount of farmland(a) converted, (b) under conversion and (c) considering conversion to organic farming; and if he will make a statement on the estimated trend and geographical spread. [67692]
  390
  Mr. Morley
  As at 31 December 1998, there were 25,158 ha of converted organic land and 18,712 ha of land in conversion, in England. It is not possible reliably to estimate the amount of farmland being considered for conversion but there is a heightened level of interest from prospective organic farmers as evidenced by a substantial increase in inquiries received by the Organic Conversion Information Service. The south and west of England have a proportionally higher number of organic producers than the rest of England.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's research budget for 1999; how much will be allocated to organic farming systems; how the organic research budget is allocated; and how his Department ensures that research is(a) co-ordinated, (b) not duplicating other work and (c) meeting the needs of the organic sector. [67712]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF's research budget for 1999–2000 has not been finalised but it is likely to be in order of £127m. £2.1m will be allocated to organic farming. The organic farming research budget is allocated by the Ministry's Organic Farming Unit and the Chief Scientist's Group with advice from the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, and taking account of the recommendations of the UKROFS R&D Committee.

  There are a number of mechanisms to ensure that the research is well co-ordinated, not duplicatory, and meets the needs of the organic sector. These include maintaining awareness of other research, the frequent inclusion of literature and research reviews within the programme, consultation with the UKROFS R&D Committee, the periodic in-depth review of the programme involving external referees, and the fact that much of the research is let by Open Competition.

  Crops Support
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to provide support for crops on(a) grassland and (b) other agricultural land; and if he will make a statement. [67730]

  Mr. Rooker
  Support for a range of arable crops, including cereals and oilseeds crops, is provided under the Common Agricultural Policy. This takes a number of forms including direct payments to farmers. In some cases the relevant EU regulations restrict the type of land on which these may be paid. If the hon. Member writes to me with details of the specific crops in which he is interested, I will give him a fuller reply.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what public protection measures he has put in place in respect of the trials of genetically modified crops. [67768]

  Mr. Meale
  I have been asked to reply.

  The release of genetically modified organisms to the environment is controlled by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 (amended in 1995 and 1997) which give effect to Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under these regulations, no genetically modified organisms may be released to the environment without prior consent from

  391
  the Secretary of State. Consent will only be granted when the potential risks to human health and the environment have been avoided or minimised.

  Departmental Staff (Travel)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the mileage rates currently applicable to staff, indicating changes which have been made to encourage staff to switch from cars to public transport and other less polluting forms of travel. [67491]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The standard mileage rates reimbursed to staff in the core-Department together with the Centre for Environmental Fisheries and Aquaculture Agency, the Central Science Laboratory Agency, the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, the Pesticides Safety Directorate, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are set out in the following table:

  Pence per mile

  Engine size

  Up to 5,000 miles

  Over 5,000 miles

  Up to 1,500cc

  36

  24

  1,501–2,000cc

  45

  28

  Over 2,000cc

  48

  37

  The Department has strict rules to ensure that any travel on official business is authorised only when it is absolutely necessary and that cars may be used only when they are the most cost-effective method of travel. However, many of the Department's customers are based in rural locations so that the public transport options are often curtailed.

  Different mileage rates apply within the Meat Hygiene Service Agency and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply directly.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Norman Baker, dated January 1999:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food enquiring about the mileage rate currently applicable to staff and indicating the changes which have been made to encourage staff to switch from cars to public transport and other less polluting forms of transport has been passed to me to reply as regards this Executive Agency.
  The MHS applies the following mileage rates:

  Mileage rates

  Essential car user

  Lump Sum per annum

  £783

  Per mile, first 10,000 miles

  34.9p per mile

  Per mile, after 10,000 miles

  13.3p per mile

  Casual car user

  Per mile, first 10,000 miles

  44.1p per mile

  Per mile, after 10,000 miles

  13.3p per mile

  Leased Cars

  9.3p per mile

  392
  The majority of MHS car users are operational staff who are responsible for supervising MHS plant-based staff at some 1,600 licensed fresh meat premises scattered across Great Britain. Many licensed premises are situated in outlying areas where public transport is not available. The use of cars is therefore essential for MHS staff to carry out their duties.
  I can assure you that the MHS does encourage the use of public transport wherever it is practical.

  Badgers
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take in response to the recommendations of the Standing Committee of the Berne Convention on the badger culling trial. [68778]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The badger is not an endangered species in this country. We give it statutory protection which goes well beyond what the Berne Convention requires. However tuberculosis is a serious disease of cattle (and humans and badgers). We have carried out a thorough scientific review and a wide public consultation. We have thus carefully explored the possible solutions for the effective control of bovine TB. We have suspended badger culling throughout most of Great Britain, but have reluctantly concluded that we must test its effectiveness as one part of a broad strategy, which includes vaccine research, as well as checks on other wildlife species for TB. We therefore intend to continue the trial and will explain to the Standing Committee why this action is fully consistent with the provisions of the Berne Convention.

  Horse and Pony Exports
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans are being made to block the export of live horses and ponies to Ireland for subsequent export to Europe for slaughter. [67871]

  Mr. Morley
  Various rules are in force to protect the welfare of horses and ponies being transported from Great Britain. We attach importance to enforcing these rules, and would promptly investigate any hard evidence that they were being broken.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Travel Advice
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes to Foreign Office travel advice have been made since 20 December 1998. [66943]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office issues Travel Advice notices on over 130 countries worldwide and updates them on a regular basis. Many of them have been updated since 20 December.

  British Citizens (Overseas Prisons)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals are currently imprisoned overseas; and if he will provide a breakdown by country. [66946]
  393
  Mr. Fatchett
  The number of British nationals imprisoned overseas (as at 22 January 1999) is 2,266. A breakdown by Country is follows:

  Country

  Number of prisoners

  Antigua

  3

  Argentina

  6

  Australia

  93

  Austria

  23

  Bahamas

  4

  Bahrain

  8

  Bali

  1

  Bangladesh

  3

  Barbados

  7

  Belgium

  81

  Belize

  1

  Bolivia

  2

  Brazil

  18

  Brunei

  1

  Bulgaria

  5

  Cambodia

  1

  Canada

  22

  Cayman Islands

  1

  China

  20

  CIS

  2

  Colombia

  5

  Croatia

  1

  Cuba

  6

  Cyprus

  6

  Czech Republic

  4

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  3

  Denmark

  23

  Djibouti

  2

  Dominican Republic

  4

  Ecuador

  10

  Egypt

  1

  Estonia

  1

  Finland

  2

  France

  321

  Germany

  109

  Gibraltar

  1

  Greece

  13

  Grenada

  3

  Guatemala

  1

  Guinea

  4

  Guyana

  1

  Hong Kong

  19

  Hungary

  2

  Iceland

  1

  India

  35

  Indonesia

  8

  Iran

  4

  Ireland

  35

  Israel

  5

  Italy

  26

  Jamaica

  28

  Japan

  18

  Jordan

  1

  Kenya

  2

  Korea

  3

  Kuwait

  5

  Laos

  1

  Luxembourg

  2

  Malawi

  1

  Malaysia

  2

  Malta

  1

  Mauritius

  2

  Mexico

  4

  Morocco

  31

  Mozambique

  1

  Nepal

  4

  Netherlands

  82

  Neth. Antilles

  1

  New Zealand

  5

  394

  Country

  Number of prisoners

  Nigeria

  1

  Norway

  18

  Oman

  1

  Pakistan

  13

  Panama

  1

  Peru

  9

  Philippines

  27

  Poland

  2

  Portugal

  28

  Qatar

  11

  Romania

  1

  Rwanda

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  3

  Sierra Leone

  3

  Singapore

  19

  South Africa

  27

  Spain

  305

  Sri Lanka

  7

  St. Lucia

  7

  Sweden

  31

  Switzerland

  21

  Syria

  2

  Taiwan

  9

  Tanzania

  1

  Thailand

  151

  Trinidad

  4

  Tunisia

  1

  Turkey

  7

  UAE

  26

  Uganda

  2

  Uruguay

  1

  USA

  344

  Uzbekistan

  1

  Venezuela

  11

  Vietnam

  10

  Yemen

  6

  Zimbabwe

  2

  East Timor
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise comments made by the Defence Attaché to the Indonesian Embassy about the use of British military exports in East Timor with the Indonesian Government. [67603]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In July 1997, we introduced new criteria for the export of defence equipment. Since then we have not issued licences for the export of equipment where we judge that there is clearly identifiable risk that the equipment might be used for internal repression or international aggression.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to ensure Indonesian compliance with UN resolutions on East Timor. [67575]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General in searching for a fair, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution to the problem. We keep in regular contact with the Secretary-General and Ambassador Marker about the progress of talks on East Timor.

  EU Fifth Framework Programme
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the UK Government policy on Israel's participation in the Fifth Framework Programme. [67405]

  Ms Quin
  We see value in Israel's participation in the Fifth Framework Programme. Given recent events in the region, however, we understand the concerns of our EU partners that now is not the right time to decide the issue. We hope this can be resolved as soon as circumstances permit.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the EU Council of Ministers will discuss the possible participation of Israel in the Fifth Framework Programme of research. [67404]

  Ms Quin
  EU Ministers looked at this issue at the GAC on 27–28 April 1998. There are no plans at present to discuss this further at Ministerial level in the EU.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what other non-EU member states are being considered for participation in the Fifth Framework Programme. [67407]

  Ms Quin
  The countries being considered for full Associated Membership of the Fifth Framework Programme are: the ten Central and Eastern European countries and Cyprus (which have applied for EU membership); Israel and Switzerland.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other EU member states on Israel's participation in the Fifth Framework Programme; and what views they have expressed. [67406]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the Fifth Framework Programme with EU colleagues in the Council in April 1998. There is consensus among EU partners that no decision on Israel's participation in the programme should be taken now.

  India (Gujarati Christians)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Indian Government about the treatment of Christians in the Gujarat. [67883]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made clear to the Indian authorities our concern over attacks on members of minority communities. I raised the issue with the Indian Home Minister in November last year. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I separately raised our concerns with the Indian National Security Adviser on 20 January.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the treatment of Christians in the Gujarat. [67882]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have had representations from religious and other organisations.

  Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) telephone inquiries and (b) letters the Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit received in December 1998. [67884]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Complete figures for December 1998 for telephone calls to the Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit (MVCU) are not available. 959 calls were received on the main public inquiry line. In addition several hundred calls were received on the Unit's other lines.

  The MVCU received 738 letters in December 1998 of which 582 were from hon. Members.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he(a) has taken in the last two years and (b) plans to take on human rights issues in Aceh, Indonesia. [67403]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to monitor events in Aceh and are in close contact with local NGOs including the Indonesia National Human Rights Commission (KomnasHam), who sent a team to Aceh earlier this month to investigate recent incidents. Our Embassy in Jakarta makes periodic visits to different parts of Indonesia, including Aceh, to assess the situation on the ground. We have made clear to the Indonesians our view that peace and reconciliation in Aceh will only be possible if past military abuses in the province are fully investigated and those responsible are made accountable for their actions.

WALES

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to safeguard the future of small abattoirs in Wales. [66157]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The slaughtering industry has been going through a substantial period of change. There is still over capacity in the industry and it is principally for commercial operators to consider how they respond to these changes.

  However, the Government's decision to cover the costs of Specified Risk Material (SRM) Inspections for this financial year will benefit the industry in Wales by an estimated £2.8 million in 1998–99.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the timescale for the conclusion of his review of the regional assistance map of Wales; and what is his anticipated timescale for legislative changes arising from the review. [67100]

  Mr. Hain
  The Commission has asked Member States to submit their map proposals for scrutiny by 31 March 1999. The new maps will come into force on 1 January 2000.
  397
  Laying the statutory instrument to bring the new Assisted Areas into operation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial provision his Department has made for the expected growth in the number of farmers converting to organic farming through the organic aid scheme; and if he will make a statement on whether the organic aid scheme budget is expected to cope with the current level of demand and expected growth in Wales. [67747]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Decisions on the funding of the Organic Aid Scheme have not yet been made.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the amount of farmland(a) converted, (b) under conversion and (c) considering conversion to organic; what assessment he has made of future trends in this area; and if he will make a statement on the geographical spread of such land. [67764]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  As at 31 December 1998, there were 3,182 h.a. of converted organic land and 2,149 h.a. of land in conversion in Wales. It is not possible to estimate reliably the amount of farmland being considered for conversion. However, there has been a substantial increase in the number of inquiries received from prospective organic farmers. The majority of organic producers are in West Wales.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy for helping Welsh farmers to become organic; and if he will list his Department's current initiatives in this area. [67762]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Our aim is to encourage an expansion of organic farming. The current initiatives are as follows:

  The Organic Aid Scheme which provides direct support for conversion.

  The Organic Conversion Information Service which provides free advice to prospective organic farmers.

  An industry-led working group has been set up to develop an action plan for the organic sector.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what rent the Welsh Health Common Services Authority is paying for 1998–99 for those parts of Crickhowell House which are currently being refurbished in preparation for the National Assembly; and from what budget those payments are made. [67467]

  Mr. Michael
  None. The Welsh Office will meet the rental costs of those parts of Crickhowell House which have been made available for Assembly purposes.
  398
  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Mobility Officers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those local authorities in Wales which have a designated mobility officer to assist blind and visually handicapped people. [67447]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The provision of assistance to blind and visually handicapped people is now through Rehabilitation Workers.

  I understand that the following local authorities directly employ Rehabilitation Workers:

  Blaenau Gwent

  Bridgend

  Cardiff

  Carmarthenshire

  Ceredigion

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Monmouthshire

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Swansea

  Value of Glamorgan.

  In addition, some local authorities have contracts with other organisations such as the North Wales Society for the Blind; the Gwent Association for the Blind; the Guide Dogs for the Blind or Vision Enhancement Services, to provide services similar to those of Rehabilitation Workers. These local authorities are:

  Anglesey

  Caerphilly

  Cardiff

  Conway

  Denbighshire

  Flintshire

  Gwynedd

  Newport

  Torfaen

  Wrexham.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Hospital Services (Partially Sighted People)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those district general hospitals in Wales which offer specific services for partially sighted people; and which hospitals outside Wales provide such services for people resident in Wales. [67449]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information relating to specific services for partially sighted people is not held centrally. Ophthalmology services are provided in the following district general hospitals in Wales:

  Inpatient, day case and outpatient services

  Bronglais General

  East Glamorgan General

  Prince Charles

  399

  Princess of Wales

  Singleton

  University Hospital of Wales

  West Wales General

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Ysbyty Wrexham Maelor

  Day Case and Outpatient Services

  Neath General

  Nevill Hall

  Prince Philip

  Withybush

  Outpatient Services

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd.

  Details for hospitals outside Wales are not held by the Department.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Visual Impairment (Children)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives have been taken by him and his Department to help identify young children who may suffer from visual impairment or potential visual impairment; and what guidelines he has issued to education, health and social services departments in Wales to ensure proper co-ordination of assistance for such children. [67450]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  All babies are offered routine physical examinations at birth, 6 to 8 weeks, and at about 18 months, which will include vision screening. Mothers are encouraged to ask for advice if they have concerns at any time. Vision is also screened at school entry.

  Local authorities and schools are responsible for identifying a child's special educational needs (SEN) and for ensuring that appropriate provision is made to meet those needs. The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of SEN [ISBN 0 85522 444 4] includes guidance on the assessment of children with sensory impairment and on the duties of local authorities and health authorities to co-operate on service provision.

  In 'Shaping the Future for Special Education—An Action Programme for Wales', published on 26 January we recognise the need for strong regional collaboration between statutory agencies in planning SEN provision, particularly in relation to low-incidence disabilities including visual impairment. We will be making additional resources available under the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) Programme from 1999–2000 to fund regional SEN planning pilot projects in Wales aimed at establishing best practice in this particular field.

  The 1997 'Health of Children in Wales' report also provides guidance on child health including visual impairment and the importance of effective multi-agency co-operation.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Public Bodies
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to promote the principles of the Compact between the Government and the Voluntary Sector in Wales to other public bodies. [68692]

  Mr. Michael
  I have today written to the Leaders of local authorities, to the Chairs of Health Authorities and Trusts and to the Chairs of NDPBs in Wales drawing their attention to the Compact between Government and the Voluntary Sector in Wales which I launched in November at the annual conference of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action.

  The Compact is an agreement about the ways in which Government and the voluntary sector will work together for mutual benefit. It paves the way for the future and is intended to form the basis for the National Assembly's Voluntary Sector Scheme. The Compact is based on the principles of integrity, trust and mutual respect. While the agreement is between Central Government and the voluntary sector, I believe that these principles are equally applicable to relationships between other public bodies and the voluntary sector. I am very pleased that the Welsh Local Government Association has responded very positively indeed. I have agreed with the Association and the Wales Council for Voluntary action on a target of having a local compact in place for every part of Wales by September.

  I believe that similar compacts, agreed between each public body in Wales and the voluntary organisations in its field of activity or geographical area will be a powerful way to recognise and improve their relationships.

  I will therefore wish to see all other public bodies in Wales meeting the same target as that agreed with the Welsh Local Government Association.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  GPs and Dentists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) general practitioners and (b) dentists there are in the NHS in North Wales. [68363]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The latest available data show that there were 435 general medical practitioners in the North Wales health authority area at 1 October 1997, of which 409 were unrestricted principals. There were 209 general dental practitioners at 30 September 1998, of which 198 were principals.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to reform the operation of housing regeneration and improvement schemes; and if he will make a statement. [68353]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are currently no plans to change the arrangements for housing regeneration and
  401
  improvement. It is for local authorities to consider their local priorities in developing regeneration strategies as part of their Housing Strategies and Operational Plans.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the state-maintained grammar schools, grouping them by constituency. [67098]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A table containing the relevant information has been placed in the Library.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the total amount of the private sector financial contribution for each Education Action Zone and show this as a proportion of the total available budget; [67295]

  (2) if he will list those instances where a contribution from a TEC to an Education Action Zone has been included as a private sector contribution. [67289]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The 25 Education Action Zones have so far raised some £5 million towards the £6 million target for business contributions in their first year of operation. We will be in a position to provide a more detailed statement of the private sector contributions to each zone when they submit their audited financial statements for the financial year 1998–99.

  A contribution from a TEC to an EAZ does not count as a business contribution unless it is being sourced from the private sector.

  New Deal Entrants
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who will enter the New Deal in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (3) 2001–02. [67410]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: By convention, the Government do not publish forecasts of unemployment. The New Deal for young people is being delivered through local partnerships. For planning purposes, the Employment Service needs to provide its managers and partners in each local unit of delivery with indicative assumptions for the numbers of young people who might join the New Deal in the year ahead. Such planning assumptions are based on current unemployment levels. They are not forecasts of the actual numbers who will participate in the programme.

  We expect the indicative planning assumptions for local units of delivery for 1999–2000 to sum to a figure in the range 200,000 to 250,000 for Britain as a whole. At this stage, we would expect the figures for subsequent years to fall within a similar range.
  402
  I placed the planning assumption figures for 1998–99 in the Library in March 1998, and I will put the planning assumption figures for 1999–2000 in the Library as soon as they are ready.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for future assessment of schools' performance in respect of physical education. [67743]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Ofsted inspections report annually on individual schools' performance and standards in all National Curriculum subjects including physical education. At a national level, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools reports annually to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on schools' compliance with the National Curriculum requirements, including physical education. The Department also publishes annually end of Key Stage 3 National Teacher Assessment results in physical education. There are no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will(a) include in the review of the National Curriculum the area of physical education and (b) require it to take evidence from sports, health and public order agencies. [67738]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The review of the National Curriculum for the year 2000 is looking at all areas of the school curriculum, including physical education. There will be a wide consultation on the revised National Curriculum in the summer. Sports, health and public order agencies—and other individuals including teachers, pupils and parents—will have opportunities then to make any representations on physical education within the school curriculum.

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate, for each local authority, the total number of pupils attending maintained schools. [67654]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number (headcount) of pupils in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools 1—January 1998. By local education authority area, by government office region in England

  Headcount

  England

  7,680,691

  North East

  435,289

  Hartlepool

  17,125

  Middlesbrough

  26,042

  Redcar and Cleveland

  26,767

  Stockton-on-Tees

  33,556

  Darlington

  16,468

  Durham

  82,028

  Northumberland

  52,493

  Gateshead

  30,709

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  40,731

  North Tyneside

  32,177

  South Tyneside

  26,625

  Sunderland

  50,568

  403

  Number (headcount) of pupils in maintained nursery, primary,
  secondary and special schools 1—January 1998. By local education authority area, by government office region in England

  Headcount

  North West and Merseyside

  1,153,328

  North West

  905,154

  Cheshire

  161,746

  Cumbria

  78,514

  Bolton

  47,329

  Bury

  29,621

  Manchester

  70,669

  Oldham

  42,135

  Rochdale

  37,144

  Salford

  37,030

  Stockport

  44,360

  Tameside

  38,775

  Trafford

  36,505

  Wigan

  51,417

  Lancashire

  229,909

  Merseyside

  248,174

  Knowsley

  30,125

  Liverpool

  82,831

  St. Helens

  30,509

  Sefton

  48,461

  Wirral

  56,248

  Yorkshire and Humber

  831,840

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  49,248

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

  44,214

  North East Lincolnshire

  28,832

  North Lincolnshire

  25,607

  York

  24,723

  North Yorkshire

  87,100

  Barnsley

  35,512

  Doncaster

  52,799

  Rotherham

  46,229

  Sheffield

  75,857

  Bradford

  90,025

  Calderdale

  35,022

  Kirklees

  65,287

  Leeds

  117,242

  Wakefield

  54,143

  East Midlands

  663,962

  Derby

  38,180

  Derbyshire

  114,043

  Leicester City

  49,825

  Rutland

  4,777

  Leicestershire

  92,002

  Lincolnshire

  96,933

  Northamptonshire

  103,135

  Nottinghamshire

  165,067

  West Midlands

  887,535

  Hereford and Worcester

  104,992

  Shropshire

  65,679

  Stoke

  40,181

  Staffordshire

  134,034

  Warwickshire

  76,063

  Birmingham

  180,977

  Coventry

  51,420

  Dudley

  51,000

  Sandwell

  52,843

  Solihull

  37,063

  Walsall

  50,182

  Wolverhampton

  43,101

  Eastern

  821,450

  Luton

  31,857

  Bedfordshire

  63,340

  Cambridgeshire

  104,928

  Essex

  240,839

  Hertfordshire

  170,473

  Norfolk

  110,840

  Suffolk

  99,173

  404

  Number (headcount) of pupils in maintained nursery, primary,
  secondary and special schools 1—January 1998. By local education authority area, by government office region in England

  Headcount

  London

  1,031,805

  Inner London

  356,905

  City of London

  204

  Camden

  22,638

  Hackney

  25,901

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  16,485

  Haringey

  32,624

  Islington

  24,331

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10,403

  Lambeth

  27,595

  Lewisham

  34,073

  Newham

  46,261

  Southwark

  33,815

  Tower Hamlets

  36,630

  Wandsworth

  28,183

  Westminster

  17,762

  Outer London

  674,900

  Barking and Dagenham

  28,534

  Barnet

  47,250

  Bexley

  38,714

  Brent

  36,875

  Bromley

  44,133

  Croydon

  47,956

  Ealing

  42,539

  Enfield

  46,134

  Greenwich

  36,618

  Harrow

  28,587

  Havering

  36,146

  Hillingdon

  38,630

  Hounslow

  35,388

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  20,133

  Merton

  24,274

  Redbridge

  39,652

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  20,089

  Sutton

  28,101

  Waltham Forest

  35,147

  South East

  1,146,419

  Berkshire

  120,265

  Milton Keynes

  34,502

  Buckinghamshire

  74,460

  Brighton and Hove

  30,168

  East Sussex

  64,883

  Portsmouth

  26,241

  Southampton

  30,928

  Hampshire

  174,064

  Isle of Wight

  19,064

  Kent

  248,843

  Oxfordshire

  84,101

  Surrey

  135,322

  West Sussex

  103,578

  South West

  709,063

  Bath and NE Somerset

  25,137

  City of Bristol

  52,586

  North Somerset

  27,057

  South Gloucestershire

  38,834

  Cornwall

  72,948

  Isles of Scilly

  261

  Devon

  154,172

  Bournemouth

  21,201

  Poole

  19,901

  Dorset

  53,039

  Gloucestershire

  83,496

  Somerset

  68,671

  Swindon

  29,190

  Wiltshire

  62,570

  1 Figures include Primary, Secondary and Special GM Schools

  Chess
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department takes to promote chess among children of school age. [67057]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The Department recognises the educational value of chess and other non-physical games both for their ability to help the acquisition of cognitive thinking skills, and of course, for the enjoyment they provide. We very much welcome the opportunities which many schools provide for their pupils to take part in such activities. It is open to schools to offer such activities as extra-curricular options, which we see as an important part of a broad and balanced education.

  A-level Results
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals were made by(a) students and (b) schools to examination boards following the publication of A level examination results in August 1998. [67962]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information on the number of A level appeals submitted in respect of the 1998 examination results is not available centrally. Except in the case of privately entered candidates, appeals may be submitted only by the school or college concerned, and not by individual candidates.

  New arrangements to be introduced from summer 1999, following a review of the qualifications appeals system, will mean that statistics on appeals will be collected and published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in future years.

  Primary Reception Classes
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the proportion of teachers currently working with children aged under five years in reception classes who have been trained to teach children under five. [67994]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available centrally.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department has issued to local education authorities on provision for four year olds in primary schools; and if he will make a statement. [67996]

  Ms Hodge
  All providers of state-funded early education for four year olds must work towards the desirable outcomes drawn up by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and currently under review. The Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership Planning Guidance for 1999–2000 requires Early Years Development and Childcare Plans to set out how reception classes will be structured to cater for the needs of younger four year olds. The draft Code of Practice on School Admissions encourages school admissions authorities to consider adopting a policy of deferred entry for young four year olds at the parent's request.
  406
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of four year olds in England are currently in primary reception classes. [67995]

  Ms Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. Fifty-six per cent, of four year olds in England were in infant classes in maintained primary schools in January 1998; infant classes include reception and other classes and exclude nursery classes. Early Years Development and Childcare Plans demonstrate how, in every Local Education Authority area, there is an early education place for every four-year-old whose parents want one in either the maintained, private or voluntary sector.

  School Bonus Payments
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he will use to assess the levels of sustained improvement to be achieved in order to trigger payments under his new proposals for school bonus payments. [67675]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The School Performance Award Scheme will reward annually the top proportion of schools which demonstrate excellent performance or significantly improve. We propose to base decisions on which schools to reward under the excellence strand on the outcomes of academic assessments in the previous academic year. Under the improvement, strand awards would be based on sustained improvement against the same indicators. We intend to make different arrangements for schools such as special schools, focusing on achievements against individualised targets, and for schools coming out of special measures more quickly than predicted.

  Our detailed proposals for the School Performance Award Scheme will be set out in the Technical Consultation Document on Pay and Performance Management, to be published very shortly. We will take final decisions on the criteria to be employed for awards under the scheme in the light of responses to this consultation.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to support the work of general practitioners and health centres in reducing the levels of teenage pregnancy by providing contraception and advice for pupils via schools. [67942]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In July 1998 the Prime Minister asked the Social Exclusion Unit to work with other government departments building on work already undertaken by the Department of Health to develop an integrated strategy to cut the rates of teenage parenthood, particularly under-age parenthood, and propose better solutions to combat the risk of social exclusion for vulnerable teenage parents and their children. The Department for Education and Employment has been fully involved with this work. The Unit expects to report to Ministers shortly.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total cost of the press releases issued by his Department since May 1997. [67924]

  Mr. Mudie
  The cost of printing and distributing press releases since May 1997 is estimated to be £63,460. This allows us at a cost of £70 per press release to get information to over 1,000 national, local and specialist media as well as local education authorities and other educational bodies. Increasing use is being made of electronic communication to reduce costs.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each of the years 1990 to 1998 the number of press releases issued by his Department. [67925]

  Mr. Mudie
  The number of press releases issued for each year from 1990 to 1998 by this department are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  833

  1991

  852

  1992

  725

  1993

  700

  1994

  564

  1995

  472

  1996

  443

  1997

  447

  1998

  598

  The figures from 1990 to 1995 are for press notices released by Department of Education and the Department of Employment, prior to their merger in July 1995.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what conventions relating to the propriety of Government publicity affect press releases issued by his Department; and if he will set out the conventions relevant to(a) content and (b) cost. [67926]

  Mr. Mudie
  The conventions relating to the propriety of Government publicity, including press releases, are contained in the report of the Working Group on the Government Information (the "Mountfield Report"). In particular page 25 of Annexe C states:"The four basic conventions, which successive Governments have applied, are that Government information services:
  should be relevant to Government responsibilities;
  should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical;
  should not be, or be liable to misrepresentation as being partly political; and
  should be conducted in an economic and appropriate way, having regard to the need to be able to justify the costs as expenditure of public funds."

  Copies of the Working Group report are available from the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) those units in his Department and (b) the number of departmental
  408
  staff which are concerned with preparing rebuttals of allegations in the media; and what is (i) the total cost of their work, including salaries and (ii) the number of rebuttals issued since May 1997. [67943]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department for Education and Employment has 28 press officers. It is their job to present and explain Departmental policy. No staff are specifically employed to prepare rebuttals of allegations in the media.

  The annual staff costs are £739,415.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 145, if he will list expenditure not included in his answer incurred (a) by task forces and review bodies, (b) by focus groups, (c) by market research and (d) for publications and publicity; and if he will list the bodies which incurred the expenditure. [67945]

  Mr. Mudie
  There were no additional research, advertising or direct mail costs incurred by task forces and review bodies. Costs for focus group research and market research were included in my previous Answer under public opinion research, 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 145.

  Within the Department's Advertising and Publicity budget the total spend on publications from May 1997 to December 1998 was £2,940,000, an average of £147,000 per month. This compares with a total spend for the previous financial year, 1996–97, of £2,500,000, or an average of £208,333 per month.

  Schools Adjudicator
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will announce the appointment of the lead adjudicator for school organisation and admissions issues. [68602]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have appointed Sir Peter Newsam as the lead adjudicator. He has wide-ranging experience for this post, gained from his time as Education Officer to the Inner London Education Authority, Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, and the Director of the Institute of Education. Further appointments of adjudicators will be made in February.

  Statutory Notices
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the outcome of statutory notices that have been waiting for more than five months from the date of each statutory notice for determination by him; and if he will(a) list the reasons for the delay in each case and (b) estimate when each determination will be made. [67927]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following list shows proposals published over five months ago and still under consideration. Reasons for delay are also shown. Since all aspects of proposals need to be carefully considered it is not possible to give a precise date for when individual decisions will be made, but most of the proposals on the list below are likely to be decided in February or early March.
  409

  Date of publication

  LEA

  Proposal

  Reason for delay

  19 August 1998

  Gloucestershire

  Blue Coat CE GM Primary—transfer to new site

  Planning permission only recently given

  16 August 1998

  Bromley

  Significant enlargement of Hayes Primary School

  School seeking modifications to original proposals

  14 August 1998

  Brighton and Hove

  Reorganisation of a number of schools

  Additional information sought from LEA. Decision deferred to allow objectors to put their concerns direct to Ministers.

  30 July 1998

  Newbury

  Turnpike GM School and Shaw House School amalgamation into new county secondary school

  Late statement of case—received 20 October

  30 July 1998

  Brent

  Establish new Jewish Primary School

  Considering Ofsted advice

  20 July 1998

  Staffordshire

  The Faber Primary Change of status from VC to VA

  Delayed submission to Department

  17 July 1998

  Solihull

  Significant enlargement of St. George and St. Theresa RC School

  Awaiting HMI comments

  16 July 1998

  Derby City

  Boulton Junior School and Boulton Infant School—amalgamation into new county primary school

  Exploration of points of uncertainty with LEA

  16 July 1998

  Luton

  Chantry Infant and Junior Schools amalgamation

  DfEE not notified of proposals until 21 October

  16 July 1998

  Brent

  Remove SEN Unit from Mitchell Brooke Primary School and add SEN Unit Oakington Manor School

  Advice from Ofsted and A&B need to be discussed with LEA

  8 July 1998

  Croydon

  Castle Hill Primary School addition of SEN unit

  Late supply of information by LEA

  3 July 1998

  East Sussex

  Claverham Community College addition of sixth form

  Decision deferred pending outcome of ACG round and further consideration of funding issues

  18 June 1998

  Westminster

  Addition of nursery Hampden Gurney CE Primary School

  Late statement of Case received January 1999

  15 June 1998

  Portsmouth

  Establish new school

  Ministers favourably disposed but awaiting confirmation that proposal can be funded through a cost effective PFI scheme

  12 June 1998

  Leeds

  New Jewish Secondary School

  Site problems

  10 June 1998

  Buckinghamshire

  Change of age range from 5–8 to 5–12 and site transfer of St. Mary's CE (VC) First School

  LEA consultation process being investigated

  10 June 1998

  Derbyshire

  Addition of sixth form to St. John Houghton RC GM school

  A late meeting (early November) with the head of the school to discuss FAS view of the proposals

  4 June 1998

  Manchester

  Closure of Woodhouse Park School, Oldwood School and Poundswick School and establishment of a new school

  Late submission of statements of case. Last required submitted on 16 December.

  20 May 1998

  Barking and Dagenham

  Addition of nursery at St. Vincent's RC Primary School

  Late statement of Case received December. Ofsted comments awaited.

  24 April 1998

  Warwickshire

  St. Thomas More RC High School addition of sixth form

  Timescale of related PFI project

  7 April 1998

  North Somerset

  Broadoak School—removal of sixth form

  Technical and Legal issues on transfer of resources from local authority finance

  1 April 1998

  Hillingdon

  Establish VA Sikh primary school—Guru Nanak Sikh

  Minded to approve decision 22 December

  410 411

  Date of publication

  LEA

  Proposal

  Reason for delay

  31 March 1998

  Swindon

  Linden Infant and Junior Schools. Proposed amalgamation to form new school

  Delays to related special school proposals

  12 March 1998

  Hackney

  Establish a new Jewish Secondary School

  Late statement of case not received until 7 July. Ofsted advice required.

  4 March 1998

  Haringey

  Bound's Green Infant's School—significant enlargement

  Awaiting LEA confirmation of funding arrangements

  4 March 1998

  Haringey

  Bound's Green Junior School—significant enlargement

  Awaiting LEA confirmation of funding arrangements

  26 February 1998

  Hackney

  Our Lady's Convent School—significant enlargement

  Consideration of need for school enlargement and cash limit for project

  5 February 1998

  Merton

  Addition of SEN unit at Bushey Middle School

  Issues concerning appropriate age range for SEN unit and link with possible Borough wide school reorganisation

  5 February 1998

  Wandsworth

  Addition of nursery at All Saints CE School

  Late statement of case received December. Ofsted comments awaited.

  30 January 1998

  Ealing

  Addition of sixth form to Walford High School

  Final decision will follow upon meeting between Ministers and delegation. Meeting to be arranged.

  30 January 1998

  East Sussex

  Addition of sixth form at Filsham Valley

  Decision deferred pending outcome of ACG round and further consideration of funding issues

  29 January 1998

  Haringey

  Establish a new school Alexandra Park School

  Lengthy correspondence about PPP issues

  12 December 1997

  Devon

  Axe Valley School and Community College addition of sixth form

  Availability of finance

  23 October 1997

  Lancashire (pre 1 April 1998)

  Addition of nursery at St. Stephen's CE Infant School

  Awaiting audit of early years provision

  16 October 1997

  Sunderland

  Change of age range to add nursery to Benedict Bishop CE Primary School

  The need to resolve capital issues

  1 October 1997

  Enfield

  New secondary school to be established in World's End Lane

  Favourably disposed decision given on 15 May 1998. Decision required once PFI contract signed.

  10 July 1997

  Westminster

  Addition of nursery unit at St. Peter's CE VA Primary School

  Promoters awaiting planning permission

  25 June 1997

  Newham

  Addition of a nursery at St. Edward's RC Primary School and transfer to a new site

  Early Land ownership issues and recent correspondence with LEA about need for expanded school

  412

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Meningitis
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are sufficient facilities and expertise to provide for patients suffering from meningitis; and whether the level of research being carried out into the causes of meningitis is appropriate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, effective treatment of meningitis requires prompt and accurate diagnosis by front-line staff, backed up by appropriate specialist support. That is why the Chief Medical Officer wrote again last week to all doctors reminding them of the key features of meningococcal disease and how suspected cases should be treated.
Much research is already being undertaken into the causes of meningitis. Additionally, the Government give priority to research into prevention. The Department of Health has been funding research over recent years into new vaccines and has recently added an extra £l million to accelerate that research.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that there is intense anxiety up and down the country, from the very tip of the north of Scotland, where children have died, to the south of England? Does she agree that there are insufficient intensive care beds? It is tragic that seriously ill patients have to be shuffled around the country.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that there has been great anxiety because of the absolute urgency of prompt diagnosis. It is a particularly worrying disease for parents. The paediatric intensive care system in this country is better equipped to cope now than it ever has been in the past. The Government have acted on the review with which they were presented when they came into office and have expanded facilities and put more money into them. Because of the specialist nature of the services, it is not appropriate and it would not be right to have them available at every district general hospital or with every paediatric unit. Therefore, it is extremely important that we have the necessary retrieval services so that very sick children can be transported safely. We are taking action to ensure that that is happening in every region.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, when does the Minister expect to have the results of trials of the new conjugate vaccine against meningitis C?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord a precise date for that. As
1128
I said in my earlier Answer, we are greatly encouraged by the progress of research into that vaccine. The current C vaccine is not appropriate for wide-scale use. The collaborative research in which we are taking part suggests that we are very close to producing something. Obviously, we must wait for the completion of the studies. There are licensing, manufacturing and resource issues. But Britain is leading the world in that research and the situation is looking extremely hopeful at present.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome many aspects of the Minister's reply, particularly as the father of a small child. Is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate public education about the warning signs of meningitis? Furthermore, is she satisfied, particularly in the light of the report of this House to which the Government have responded, that all steps are being taken to ensure that current antibiotics retain their effectiveness?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly pinpoints the importance of general policy on antibiotics because in this situation antibiotic treatment is effective and it is very important that it is given promptly.
As regards public information, within the Department of Health we work collaboratively with the voluntary organisations which are particularly active in that field in trying to give advice to parents and, in particular, to the teenage generation who are at risk. There has been an extremely effective campaign on campuses to alert young people to the signs and symptoms of meningitis. We have all had illustrated to us recently how crucially effective an individual's knowledge of the signs and symptoms of the disease can be in averting tragedy.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, there have been many press reports on some distressing cases over the past year. Is there any comparative information about previous years which my noble friend can give the House?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend points out that there have been press reports, as, indeed, there are every winter because we tend to see a winter peak of meningococcal infection. As far as we can tell from this year's figures, they are not particularly out of line with those of the past two or three years. There was an increase which was steeper than we would normally expect in the first two weeks of the year. I am glad to say that the number of notifications for the third week in January has actually gone down.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work of the Meningitis Trust based in Stroud, where the first publicly acknowledged cluster of cases occurred, following which the trust was set up? Does she acknowledge that it plays a valuable role in both an informative and supportive way?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise the role that both the Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation play in this field. Indeed, my colleague, Tessa Jowell, opened a counselling suite at

1129
the Meningitis Trust last week. Many parents have been very grateful for the advice that they received from those organisations.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one area of concern is when professionals do not believe parents when they say that their children are ill, especially because time is of the essence? Will she issue guidance on that matter to professionals in the health service? The noble Baroness talked about individuals recognising the symptoms; in the case of small children, that would be the parents. Can guidance be issued to professionals on that matter?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is not appropriate for me to do so, but the Chief Medical Officer wrote to professionals in January, as he writes every year. This year he was highlighting the key signs to look for not only to GPs, but also, which is as crucially important, to those working in A&E departments who may be presented with a sick child. Action therefore is being taken on that front.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following my noble friend's earlier answer on vaccine development, can she tell us about vaccines against the B type meningococcus, which is one of the major causes of recent outbreaks? In that work, are we collaborating scientifically with Cuba whose microbiologists produced the best vaccine so far available against that specific variety of the organism?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the research to which I referred earlier related to meningitis C rather than meningitis B. The research on the B organism is less well developed. We are collaborating with Dutch national vaccine manufacturers to develop and evaluate a group B vaccine. Though I am aware of Cuba's success—indeed, the Department of Health met with officials from the Cuban Ministry of Health—as I understand it, the Cuban vaccine, which is extremely efficacious in Cuba, has not been so effective in other countries, especially in young children, as it is formulated against a different strain of the B organism than that which we encounter in this country.
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, I have some personal experience of the relevance of this Question. Can the noble Baroness say what action is being taken by the public health authorities to identify possible contacts with carriers in the event of an outbreak?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not certain that anything is done by the Public Health Laboratory Service in that regard. It is particularly crucial, because of the nature of outbreaks in circumstances where young people are often away from home and living in communal facilities for the first time, for universities and colleges to be aware of the need to work collaboratively with health authorities if
1130
individual cases occur in a school or college so that proper, effective measures can be taken. We have a vaccine which will work for the short term, but it is not effective for long-term immunisation

Nuclear Weapons
3.17 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their two policies of maintaining the nuclear deterrent and eliminating nuclear weapons are consistent, and whether their vote for the former at the United Nations was in conflict with the latter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, as the Strategic Defence Review made clear, the Government wish to see a safer world in which there is no place for nuclear weapons. We have promised to retain Trident as the ultimate guarantee of our national security, while pressing for multilateral negotiations towards balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. We have made absolutely clear that when we are satisfied with progress we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in negotiations.
There is no inconsistency in this approach, nor have any votes we have recently cast at the United Nations been in conflict with it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that no nuclear nations will find difficulty in accepting the seriousness of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to this matter unless the Government are prepared to put forward a programme as to how they propose to reach that point? Will they consider tabling a Motion in the General Assembly and raising the matter in the Security Council or even in NATO? We can then have some idea of how the Government expect to proceed and their desire to reach the stage of elimination of nuclear weapons can be taken seriously. We may then accept that they do not place the retention of Trident above that.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that anybody will have problems with the consistency of our approach. We did not support the specific resolutions to which my noble friend referred because we did not believe that they were practical and that that would have been consistent with the maintenance of our credible deterrent. There is an impressive programme and substantial agenda on nuclear disarmament ahead of us in 1999. The Government's view is that the most important aspect of that is the negotiation in the conference on disarmament for a treaty to end the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosives. We have already called a moratorium on that in this country and, uniquely, we declared our stocks of such fissile material. It is also important to

1131
see the ratification of START 2 and that those countries which have not yet signed the test ban treaty do so. We are lobbying them to do so soon.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Minister tell us a little more about the procedures in regard to START 2? Can I draw attention in particular to the serious problems facing the Russian Federation in terms of protecting and safeguarding its own substantial stock of nuclear missiles? They include those from other former CIS countries that were repatriated to Russia. Can the noble Baroness comment on what steps might be taken to assist them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, START 2 still awaits ratification by the Russian Duma. We had hoped, as, indeed, had the Russian Government, that the Duma might ratify the treaty last December. In the event, we understand they are now hoping to do so in the spring. The Russian Government have assured us that they remain committed to it and that they will do everything they can to secure ratification. The Russian and the US Governments have made it clear that they are determined to move rapidly to negotiation on START 3 once START 2 is ratified. The outlines of such a treaty have already been agreed by President Yeltsin and President Clinton in part to help to try to achieve ratification by the spring.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister recall that as recently as last November, her noble friend Lord Gilbert, in his speech in the debate on the humble Address, made a clear, intellectually respectable proposition about the policy of Her Majesty's Government in that connection? Does she also agree that if we follow to its logical conclusion the implications of the proposition put forward by her noble friend Lord Jenkins, a policy of general and complete disarmament could not be pursued while we still have an Army, Navy and Air Force? Does she finally agree that this demonstrates, once again, that her noble friend is either unable or unwilling to recognise the difference between multilateral and unilateral disarmament?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to agree that my noble friend Lord Gilbert put forward an intellectually respectable argument, as, indeed, he always does—and I do not believe that he is unique on these Benches in so doing.
Her Majesty's Government made some very significant steps last year towards fulfilling the commitments we made to the British people in our election manifesto. We withdrew the freefall bomb in March last year. In April last year, we ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Strategic Defence Review last year resulted in reductions of more than 70 per cent. in potential explosives, and in August last year we welcomed the establishment of the ad hoc committee to negotiate on fissile material.
1132
I believe that we have been entirely consistent. I do not accept the argument of my noble friend Lord Jenkins and I hope that I have been able to demonstrate why.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, can the Minister throw any light on the situation at the nuclear processing plant at Drake in Cumbria, which I understand has had to stop receiving any nuclear materials because it has been discovered that that plant exceeds the amounts of carbon 14 allowable for the next 25 years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to shed any light on that matter. However, I understand from my noble friend Lord Gilbert that he hopes in due course to be able to do so. I understand that the noble Lord has tabled a Question specifically on that issue which will be answered in due course.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the very worst thing that could happen would be if a wedge were driven between the nuclear and non-nuclear powers so as to preclude any further agreement on the way forward? Can she assure us that the Government are fully alert to that danger?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, that is an important point. I assure the House that although the Government were unable to support the "new agenda" resolutions, as they have been referred to, we were able to support, for example, the resolution tabled by Japan on the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons and that by the United States and Russia on the importance of bilateral arms negotiations. We have also supported resolutions on nuclear weapon-free zones in central Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, so I believe we have been conscious of the dangers which my noble and learned friend describes.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as the clock is now showing that 16 minutes have already elapsed, I think it is time that we moved on to the next Question.

Gulf War Illness Research Unit: Study
3.24 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the results of the epidemiological study conducted by the King's Gulf War Illness Research Unit.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, we welcome the results from the King's Gulf War Illness Research unit study. It was the first large-scale study on this subject carried out in this country, and these results, therefore, represent an important milestone in our understanding of UK Gulf veterans' illnesses. Among other actions, the MoD is asking the Medical Research Council for its advice on our future strategy in the light of the two papers' findings.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In view of the fact that the Medical Research Council stated some three years ago, I believe, that there was no need for causal research, and the fact that Professor Wessely, at the press conference at which he launched his paper, said that there was an urgent need for causal research, will the Minister ensure that the Medical Research Council understands that? Can he also do something about the atmosphere of denial which pervades the Ministry of Defence and the medical assessment programme (MAP) and possibly put it out to a totally independent group of physicians and consultants who understand what these men are suffering from and will provide both treatment and diagnosis?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am sure that the Medical Research Council needs no instruction from me. It will, of course, have read the reports of the two studies in the Lancet. As far as concerns the Ministry of Defence, we totally accept that as a result of the conclusions of the studies, we need to do a lot more work. For the benefit of those of your Lordships who may not have seen the recent articles in the Lancet, I shall read very briefly one of the interpretations:
"Although results from complex modelling procedures need to be interpreted with caution, our findings do not support a unique Gulf War Syndrome. The mechanisms behind increased self-reporting of symptoms need further investigation".
As far as the MAP is concerned, I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the waiting list for that programme, which was around 450 in the spring of 1997, is now down to 40.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, having mentioned the further research to be carried out, can the Minister say whether independent scientists and doctors (in whom there is more confidence because of that independence), will be asked to undertake such research? That has consistently caused concern. Will the Ministry of Defence consider that?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I think that perhaps the noble Lord is not fully informed in these matters. The Ministry of Defence is already funding five studies outside the MoD; namely, at Manchester University, Professor Cherry's study into epidemiological matters; a study by Dr. Doyle at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; a study by Drs. Sharief and Rose at King's College Medical School into neuromuscular matters. We are also funding a literature review at the University of Wales by
1134
Professor Lewis and there is work being done at Potion Down. I really do not believe that the Ministry of Defence can be accused of not consulting the most eminent people in these matters.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister quoted from Professor Wessely's results. However, he did not say that Professor Wessely found that Gulf veterans were between two and three times more likely to be suffering from illness than veterans of Bosnia or Northern Ireland. He also stated that there was a possible connection between the administration of nerve agent pretreatment tablets and the anthrax vaccine. I have always maintained that there is no such thing as "Gulf War syndrome"; but there are Gulf War illnesses because of the variations in the mens' illnesses. That is precisely why we need causal research. If we do not know what is happening, we will not find the answers.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I would not disagree with a word that the noble Countess has said. I shall refer to the actual words in the author's interpretation of the other Lancet articles, and I shall abbreviate so as not to impose on your Lordships' time:
"associations of ill health with adverse effects and exposures were found in all cohorts, however, they may not be unique and causally implicated in Gulf-War-related illness".
Lord Burnham: My Lords, when the research is undertaken, will it include an examination of the geographical location of the people suffering from these illnesses? It looks strongly as if a very high proportion come from the north-east of the country.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, we have been looking more at the geographical distribution of people in the Gulf rather than where they come from in this country. However, I shall certainly bear in mind the noble Lord's suggestion. I have no idea whether it has any medical validity, but I shall put it to our people.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, Professor Wessely's report certainly confirmed the view of the Royal British Legion that those who were deployed in the Gulf are more unwell than their colleagues who were not so deployed. Is it not a fact that 400 people have died since the Gulf War, and that one has already committed suicide? Can the Minister give us his view as to what happened at a recent inquiry into the verdict regarding a craftsman, John Callaghan, who committed suicide? At that inquiry there was a representative from the Ministry of Defence who actually did not answer the questions posed. Can the noble Lord say why an open verdict was given and why the evidence of that witness was not reviewed?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is not in my hands to say why a particular verdict is given in any court proceedings in this country. I imagine that the noble Earl is referring to remarks made by Colonel Bosanquet, who was not then a representative of the Ministry of Defence; he was giving his own personal views.

EU/US Banana Dispute
3.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they and other member states of the European Union propose to take to confront the threat made by the United States to impose sanctions on 520 million dollars-worth of European Union exports as from 1st February in consequence of the breakdown of negotiations between the European Union and the United States.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, I should like to give assurance to the House that the United Kingdom, along with other member states of the European Union and acting through the European Commission, is doing everything it can to seek a solution to the dispute about bananas through the World Trade Organisation. Negotiations are now under way between the European Commission, acting for the European Union, the United States and the WTO's director-general Ruggiero. We are likely to know more about the outcome of these negotiations during the course of today. However, I want to make it clear that we must do all we can to resolve this dispute through the WTO and avoid the imposition of retaliation. We want to see all sides engaged fully and urgently in the panel process to determine whether or not the EU's banana regime is consistent with WTO rules.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that intellectually respectable reply. Is it not absolutely "bananas" that, at the time of a severe downturn in world trade, the United States is seemingly resolved to start a trade war over the revised European Union banana regime by applying arbitrarily selected, unilateral and punitive sanctions, 23 per cent. of which would hit the United Kingdom? Is it not very clear that the line taken by the EU and by our Government is the right one? Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what steps the Government and the EU are proposing in relation to retaliation if in fact the negotiations do break down while abiding by the due process of the WTO?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it does not appear quite appropriate that this dispute has been raised to the level of intensity that it has. However, I am absolutely sure that our negotiators are currently seeking to achieve the following objectives: first, that no retaliation should come into effect unless the panel rules that the EU regime is not consistent with WTO rules; and, secondly, to press the EU and the US to implement the WTO panel outcome, when it is known, without delay. We understand the concerns of our Caribbean partners in the matter. We know that both the UK and the EU have very longstanding political and legal obligations.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, notwithstanding the very proper negotiations in which the Government
1136
are engaged with the EU and the WTO, will they make it clear to our allies in the United States that this form of economic bullying is wholly unacceptable and that one of the threats would have a devastating effect on the Scottish cashmere industry if it were carried out? As that industry is located in the Scottish Borders, which have suffered a series of hammer blows recently, will the Minister have discussions with his noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who has visited the area, and express his vehemence and knowledge to the US Government on this quite absurd and improper threat?
Lord Simon of Highbury: Yes, my Lords. I quite understand the impact of the threat of retaliation; indeed, even before it is there, it is bad for industry. I totally recognise that fact. Such uncertainty is unacceptable. However, I can confirm that, through my noble friend in the Foreign Office, the trade departments and, indeed, at the highest levels of government in this country, we have stressed extreme urgency in our consultations with our colleagues in the United States about the severity of our reaction to the problem.
Lord Peston: My Lords, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, does my noble friend the Minister recall that noble Lords have made it clear that this House in particular dislikes being threatened by our very good friends in the United States? Can my noble friend throw any light on the article which appeared in the Financial Times either yesterday or the day before which stated that our colleagues in Italy are already advocating that we make concessions on the matter before the battle has even begun? Can we be reassured that our Government and the EU generally will show complete backbone in the matter and simply not stand for any of this?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I cannot assure my noble friend of the individual position of any of our partners as portrayed in newspaper reports. However. I am certain that the process of negotiation to resolve what is an acute problem—even though it is a very small and slippery subject—is being taken extremely seriously. The EU negotiators know full well the nature of our position, but, in order to resolve such a dispute, we must be able to negotiate.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that we all agree that a trade war would be an absolute disaster for the world as a whole? Indeed, it would have a terrible impact on some Caribbean islands, with disastrous effects on their populations. If the banana trade collapses, is there not also the prospect of that vacuum being filled by drugs? Can the Minister assure the House that this point is being made most vigorously to the American Government who would be sufferers of the effects of this policy, just as much as we in Europe would be?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, again, I can only confirm to the noble Baroness that we take the matter extremely seriously. We have gone through all

1137
the accepted channels in government to make our position, as the UK, clear. Noble Lords should be in no doubt that that is also extremely clear to the European Union negotiators who, naturally, have to negotiate on behalf of all the EU signatories to the agreement.

Health Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law about the National Health Service; make provision in relation to arrangements and payments between health service bodies and local authorities with respect to health and health-related functions; confer power to regulate any professions concerned (wholly or partly) with the physical or mental health of individuals; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 31 [Rights of audience: employed advocates]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 19, line 7, at end insert ("as regards his acting as an advocate on behalf of—

(a) his employer, or

(b) where his employer's only or main activity is providing legal services to the public, a client of his employer").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, for the convenience of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 237A and 239A. Clause 31 deals with rights of employment for employed advocates. Subsection (1) exempts employed advocates from certain professional rules of conduct. For this purpose a person is an employed advocate if he
1138
is employed by the Crown in any capacity which involves his appearing before courts or,
"he is otherwise employed in such a capacity",
that is, otherwise than by the Crown.
That wording is very wide. In terms it would mean that if he is in employment in that capacity he may represent anyone, however unconnected with his employers. Presumably that is not the intention. My noble and learned friend may be pleased to hear that this amendment is intended purely to be helpful. The purpose of the amendment is simply to limit the exemption to what everyone believes was always intended. What is proposed is that the measure should be limited to situations in which the advocate represents his employer or, if his employer is in business to assist or represent clients, represents one of his employer's clients. It is a short point. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: New section 31A(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act seems to give rights of audience to any qualified person employed as an advocate without any restriction on whom he can provide those services for. If that is the intention, we believe that it goes too far. Leaving aside the vexed question of employees of the Crown Prosecution Service, we accept that employees should have a right to appear as advocates on behalf of their employers. A qualified advocate employed by a bank should be entitled to act as an advocate on behalf of the bank in litigation to which the bank is a party. However, we do not believe that the bank should be able to offer the advocacy services of its employees to its customers for their litigation. Legal services are not services such as insurance to be marketed by a conglomerate. Efficient, honest and incorruptible legal services are of central importance in democratic societies, as indeed is recognised by Clause 36 of this Bill. Solicitors may, of course, employ someone with advocacy qualifications to provide advocacy for their clients. However, we believe that advocacy services should not be provided as a by-product of some completely different kind of service.
Lord Borrie: This amendment in effect forbids an employed lawyer from acting as an advocate for a client of his employer unless the employer's sole or main activity is providing legal services. In coming to a view on this matter I have been aided by the information given to me by the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry—a body of which I am not a member, but I, and no doubt other Members of the Committee, have received information from it—which has a membership of about 1,200 barristers who work in industry. It is a respectable body, as is indicated by the fact that its president is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and one of its vice-presidents is the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon.
Earlier this month the association sent me a letter in which it points out that the barristers who belong to the association—I shall call them in-house barristers for short—have long suffered from the restrictive rules of the Bar Council which prevent them from exercising rights of audience in the higher courts at all. The Bar Association is represented on the General Council of the

1139
Bar, but it feels that it is not really represented by that body in, for example, such discussions and debates as we are having today. The in-house lawyers were considerably gratified to note Clauses 31 to 37 of this Bill. In their view the value to industry of those measures will be significant as companies will be able to use their own in-house lawyers for litigation in so far as they choose to do so. They may choose to use an in-house barrister for interlocutory proceedings but not for main proceedings. Or, they made choose to have an in-house lawyer, acting as a junior independent barrister, as Queen's Counsel in the proceedings. But they would have the choice.
Naturally, many firms which employ barristers in-house are concerned to keep down the costs of litigation. They wish to provide legal services to their clients, as well as any services they need for themselves, in a way which suits them best. They want to have that freedom of choice. The Bar Association has provided a number of case studies to illustrate the situation. That is most useful in my view. I have selected just one of them to mention this afternoon. It concerns a company which provides consultancy services in the construction industry. As one would expect, it engages quantity surveyors, engineers, architects and lawyers. Many of its lawyers have dual professional qualifications which firms find of great value. For example, someone may be qualified both in law and one of the engineering professions.
The firm to which I refer, James R Knowles Plc, has 18 barristers on its staff. According to the Bar Council rules, they are technically non-practising barristers because they provide legal services to their employer's clients. At present they are not allowed to act as advocates in court for any of their employer's clients. In other words, at the present time they cannot provide a comprehensive, one-stop service to their clients. They can assist with arbitration and with mediation. However, the land which is marked "keep off" is the land of litigation.
The Committee will appreciate that clients of this consultancy firm may have had a long and established relationship with the firm. As and when a matter may unfortunately give rise to litigation, they do not wish to go outside, as it were, to seek a barrister to represent them in court. After all, this is a specialist area of law. If a barrister is employed by this consultancy firm who has perhaps dual qualifications, he may be—I say only may be—the best choice for the client in terms of advocating his cause in the courts.
Many Members of the Committee, and those who propose this amendment, may be concerned—as was the case when we discussed criminal cases earlier in the Committee stage—about the integrity and the independence of barristers. It is argued that unless they are part of the independent barristers' profession, they may be less independent and show less integrity in some way. Of course the Committee is aware, although we have not yet discussed it in any detail, that Clause 36, which we shall reach shortly, stipulates that any advocate has an overriding obligation to the courts rather than to anyone else.
1140
In my submission this amendment would damage the growing legitimate business of consultancy firms—of the kind I have mentioned—of firms of accountants and of well-known and respected insurance companies. The amendment would prevent them providing a service to the client which includes legal services and which includes occasionally, unfortunately, the need to go to litigation. To deprive those companies of being able to provide one of their in-house lawyers as an advocate in court would be to restrict them at such time as one or more, or in the case of insurance companies many, of their clients might need legal assistance in the courts. The rights of subrogation would be involved in such a case. Yet the in-house lawyer, who these days is often very skilled and has possibly been an independent practitioner in the past, would be prevented from assisting in a client's pursuit of his case through the courts. The Bill, unamended, would provide for the development of that service without in any way impairing or impeding the position of the independent Bar, whose members will, as always, be available if that is a client's choice.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Does he agree that, as presently drafted, the Bill would permit the employed lawyer to represent anyone who simply came to him or her with any kind of case, totally unrelated to the business of the employer?
Lord Borrie: It may be that the wording of the clause is broader than is desirable. What I am concerned to establish is that it is ultimately very desirable that in-house lawyers should be enabled to provide services for clients—I gave the example of established clients—of the kind of firms I have mentioned. I imagine that it would be very difficult to create some rigid distinction as to, for example, whether a person had been a client for a month, a year or whatever before that was allowed to happen.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend Lord Archer seeks to clarify the scope of Clause 31. He describes his point as a short one; however, it is important and has wide ramifications, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, demonstrated.
Amendments Nos. 237A and 239A standing in my name are intended to achieve the same purpose of clarifying the scope of Clause 31. Therefore, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if, at the outset of our deliberations, I take what I regard as a useful opportunity to set out the whole of the Government's thinking on these issues. Perhaps I may deal first with the specific amendments.
Clause 31 is designed to abolish, once and for all, the disgraceful restrictive practices which have prevented Crown Prosecutors and other employed lawyers from appearing in the higher courts, regardless of their qualifications.
Clause 30 grants all barristers and solicitors rights of audience, which may, however, only be exercised in accordance with the qualification regulations and rules of conduct of the authorised body concerned. It will

1141
remain for the Bar Council and the Law Society to regulate the rights of audience of their members. But the Government do not intend that, in regulating their members, they should be able to discriminate against employed barristers and solicitors as they currently do.
Amendment No. 237A replaces the word "circumstances" in subsection (2)(a) with the word "capacity". That subsection provides that employed advocates are not bound by professional rules which limit the courts before which, or proceedings or circumstances in which, a right of audience may be exercised by an employed advocate; this is subject to the proviso in subsection (2)(b) that such rules do not apply, only if the same limitation is not imposed on other members of the body.
My intention is that an employed lawyer should be able to exercise rights of audience in the higher courts if he is otherwise qualified to do so. His employed status should not in itself constitute a barrier. But I think the word "circumstances" may go too far. I do not intend to prevent the professional bodies from making rules governing the exercise of rights of audience which provide differently for the different circumstances of advocates in private practice and employed advocates.
In particular, and here I begin to touch on the issues raised by my noble and learned friend's amendment, I do not wish to prevent the professional bodies from requiring that the generality of employed advocates should not provide their services to the public at large, but should appear in court only on behalf of their employers.
There are, of course, arguments, some of which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in favour of allowing commercial companies such as insurance companies or management consultants to provide advocacy services to their clients. However, I am not persuaded by those arguments. With the leave of the Committee, I shall explain the Government's position in greater detail in a moment.
So what I propose in Amendment No. 237A is to replace the word "circumstances" with the word "capacity". This is narrower, but will still ensure, for example, that professional rules cannot prevent employed advocates from appearing as the sole or leading advocate in a substantive case. I think that this narrowing achieves what my noble and learned friend Lord Archer intends by his amendment, which is to preserve those professional rules which prevent employed advocates, other than those who are employed in lawyers' offices, from offering their services to the public.
The amendment that I have proposed leaves one problem unresolved, which is the position of those advocates who are employed by lawyers of another category. Solicitors employed by firms of solicitors are treated by the Law Society's rules as solicitors in private practice. They may therefore offer their services to the public and, if they have the necessary qualifications, may exercise full rights of audience.
1142
In contrast, barristers employed in solicitors' offices, are deemed, by a fiction of the Bar Rules, to be non-practising banisters. They may offer limited legal services to members of the public but have no rights of audience of any kind under the Bar's rules, no matter how well qualified they are, and no matter how many years they may have spent as barristers in private practice.
The Government regard that as a restrictive practice which cannot be tolerated. A barrister who would have full rights of audience if he were in private practice should have full rights of audience if he works for a solicitor, and should be able to offer his services as an advocate to members of the public in the same way as solicitor advocate employed in the same firm.
My intention is, therefore, that lawyers who are employed by other lawyers, such as barristers working in solicitors' offices, should be able to offer advocacy services to members of the public. But I am not confident that Clause 31 achieves that end at present. I shall therefore bring forward an amendment at Report stage in order to make that explicit. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that my noble and learned friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
The last amendment in this group, Amendment No. 239A, is designed simply to clarify the drafting of Clause 31 without affecting its substance. As I have already explained, the purpose of Clause 31 is to abolish, once and for all, the restrictive practices which have prevented Crown prosecutors and other employed lawyers from appearing in the higher courts, regardless of their qualifications. It does this by inserting into the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 a new Section 31A, which provides that someone who has been granted a right of audience by an authorised body and is "employed as an advocate" is not bound by certain restrictions which might otherwise prevent him from exercising his rights of audience.
Subsection (3) of the new Section 31A defines when a lawyer with rights of audience is "employed as an advocate". It covers in subsection (3)(a) Crown prosecutors and others in Crown employment and in subsection (3)(b) advocates employed outside government. The existing wording of subsection (3)(b) refers to those who,
"are otherwise employed in such a capacity",
which seems to me to be potentially confusing, as it is not immediately clear whether it refers to those who are employed by the Crown or those who are employed in a capacity which involves appearing before the courts. The latter is the correct interpretation, it is the invention and I hope that the amendment makes that clear.
The effect of the amendment will be that the two categories of employed advocate are: first, Crown prosecutors; and secondly, other lawyers with rights of audience who are employed in a capacity which involves appearing before the courts. The separate reference to other Crown employment will go, and other government lawyers will be covered by the second category. The definition of "Crown employment" in subsection (4) will be rendered unnecessary and will also disappear. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon

1143
of Glaisdale, is not in his place this afternoon, but I hope that this reduction in unnecessary verbiage would have appealed to him, had he been present.
I commend the amendments standing in my name, Amendments Nos. 237A and 239A. I have explained the amendments but it may be of assistance to the Committee at the outset of our deliberations to be in no doubt as to the state of affairs that the Government intend to bring about as a result of the changes in the law.
I summarise the matter as clearly as I can in relation to each category of lawyer. The intention of the Bill is that solicitors and barristers should, if they wish, be able to acquire and exercise full rights of audience in accordance with the rules of their profession, without any discrimination for or against either category.
The way this is to be achieved is that they will be granted full rights of audience in principle on call to the Bar or admission to the roll of solicitors. But whether they may exercise them, and the circumstances in which they may exercise them, will be governed by the training requirements and rules of conduct of each professional body, subject to the restrictions on those rules which are contained in the Bill.
A solicitor or barrister who has qualified to exercise full rights of audience will retain those rights if he moves from one branch of the profession to the other. He will also retain them if he joins the Crown Prosecution Service, or enters other Crown employment as a government lawyer, or is employed as a lawyer by local government or by the legal services commission. A barrister or solicitor who joins the public service without having previously acquired the ability to exercise full rights of audience—for example, a barrister who has not been able to find pupillage—should be capable of acquiring those rights as an employed lawyer. I look to the professional bodies to find sensible ways of achieving this, but the Bill does not deal with that point directly.
Now I turn to barristers or solicitors in other employment. Obviously a solicitor employed by a firm of solicitors is capable of acquiring full rights of audience already. A barrister employed by such a firm, however, is not able to exercise any rights of audience on behalf of its clients, even if upon joining the firm he is a barrister with many years' experience as an advocate in the higher courts with full rights of audience. He can only acquire rights of audience afresh as a solicitor. This is an obvious restrictive practice inhibiting flexibility and movement within the profession. I am not satisfied that the Bill currently deals with this problem effectively, and I shall therefore be seeking to bring forward a suitable amendment on Report.
I next turn to solicitors or barristers who are employed as lawyers in industry or commerce or with other employers. That was the focus of the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. If they have met the qualification requirements which apply to other members of their profession, then they too should be able to exercise full rights of audience in the courts on behalf of their employers. I believe that the rightness of
1144
that was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. This will be made possible as a consequence of the new Section 31A in the 1991 Act, inserted as a result of Clause 31 of the Bill. The new Section 31A outlaws discrimination on the grounds of employee status.
I next address the issue to which the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was directed. I have considered the further and important question of whether fully qualified barristers and solicitors employed as advocates in commerce or industry or in other private sector employment should also be able to offer their advocacy services to the public or to the clients of their employers, as distinct from their employers themselves. Arguably the words "or circumstances" in the new Section 31A(2)(a) would outlaw the rules which currently prevent that, since they impose a limitation on those for whom employed advocates may act which does not apply to advocates in private practice.
There are arguments—and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, canvassed them—for enabling an advocate employed by an insurance company, for example, to represent in court a party whose potential liability is covered by a policy with the company. Other private companies such as management consultants or banks might also like the opportunity to offer advocacy services to their customers when required.
While I do not rule out that option for the future—I cannot do so since it is always open to the professional bodies to propose changes to their rules—I do not think it would be appropriate for the Bill to strike down the regulations which currently prevent those developments. Advocacy services need to be properly regulated by the professional bodies, especially when they are being offered to the public at large. I do not wish to open up a gap in regulation which might enable an insurance company, bank or supermarket for that matter—or, indeed, what might be called a Virgin law shop—to provide professional legal services to the public, without having to comply with the regulations which govern firms of solicitors or barristers in Chambers or with equivalent regulations to protect the public.
The Government, therefore, do not intend that the Bill should abolish the rules which prevent the provision of advocacy services to the public or to clients by commercial organisations other than firms of lawyers. That will remain a matter for regulation by the professional bodies.
I apologise to the Committee for taking so much time at the outset, but I thought that it would be of assistance if the whole position from the Government's standpoint were made clear at this early stage in our discussions this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord Woolf: I am grateful for that clear and helpful description of the general position of the Government on the series of clauses to the Bill and the proposed amendments. I, like many noble Lords present, found what the noble and learned Lord said very reassuring.
However, let me draw attention to a matter which is of concern not only to myself but to many of my judicial colleagues. At Second Reading, I made it clear that I did not in general oppose the extensions of rights of

1145
audience. In common with the Lord Chief Justice, I drew attention to the deeply felt concerns to which I have already referred. Those concerns were as to the possible adverse consequences on the administration of justice which could result from the extension. Central to those concerns was a fear that the standards of advocacy and representation in courts and tribunals would deteriorate. To avoid this happening, I suggest that it is essential that there should be in place, for all who have rights of audience, a common code of conduct as to how those rights are exercised, and a common disciplinary body to enforce that code.
In saying that, I should emphasise that I am not suggesting that the common code should interfere with the rights of each professional body to regulate its members in general terms. I am concerned about the quality of the services provided in the courts and tribunals to which I have referred as a result of those rights of audience.
The Bar has already in place the type of code and disciplinary body which I would like to see commonly applied to the Bar, solicitors and legal executives. I believe that, with encouragement, there should be no difficulty in reaching agreement on a common code dealing with advocacy practice, and a common disciplinary body to enforce it.
As noble Lords will know, as Master of the Rolls I have a special relationship with the solicitor side of the profession. I am also a vice-president of the Institute of Legal Executives. I shall certainly urge those two bodies to co-operate in what I have suggested should exist. I have no reason to think that the Bar would have any problem with what is being proposed.
However, if an agreement cannot be reached, I suggest that this would be an example of a situation where the Lord Chancellor, subject to suitable consultation and safeguards, should be able to use the powers that this Bill gives him to take appropriate action. This would not involve any infringement of the independence of the three professional bodies to which I have referred. It would avoid a wholly undesirable lack of consistency in standards in relation to the rights of audience, which I apprehend will concern noble Lords. Whether it is an employed or independent barrister, solicitor or legal executive who is acting as advocate, the same standards of conduct must be observed.
The views I have just put forward were expressed forcefully by the Council of the Inns of Court in its paper in response to the consultation paper on rights of advocacy. They are supported by the Lord Chief Justice and by the Judges Council, which considered the issue last night.
Will the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor confirm, first, that he agrees that all those who practise as advocates before courts or tribunals should be subject to a common code of conduct relating to the role of the advocate while they are acting in that capacity, and that there should be a single disciplinary body, and, secondly, that if the authorised bodies fail to reach agreement, the Lord Chancellor will have under the Bill sufficient powers to ensure that a common code and a disciplinary tribunal are established?
1146
I see no objection to extending rights of audience as long as consistent standards—as high as at present—are observed. The maintenance of those standards depends on a suitable disciplinary procedure being in existence in which the judiciary must have the final word. I can see every objection to a series of different bodies having rights of audience, each with its own standards and own means of enforcement. If we are not to have those safeguards, the case that could be made by those noble Lords who are not in favour of the proposals in this part of the Bill would be that much stronger. The ability to enforce standards is the foundation on which the case for extending rights depends. If those rights are to be enforced, they must be enforced consistently. I would suggest that that can only be done by having a common disciplinary tribunal.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he tell us what "standards" comprise? Do they comprise competence?
Lord Woolf: The standards to which I specifically refer are standards in the face of the court or tribunal. Those will be dependent upon competence but, as I see it, the question of competence is one which can be safely left in the hands of the individual professions. Different considerations apply to standards in the conduct of the litigation before the court or tribunal.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support what the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls has said in a very interesting development in the debate. I sincerely hope, as a practising solicitor—but no longer a solicitor advocate, except maybe here—that the Law Society and Institute of Legal Executives will have no difficulty in accepting the principle of the argument. It would be interesting to see whether my noble and learned friend had to bang heads together on this. I would hope not, but as a last recourse that may be necessary.
Can I ask my noble and learned friend whether the current regulations deal with this situation? If an advocate is employed by company A, could he act for a subsidiary of that company and vice versa? I do not know the answer—it may be irrelevant—but it occurs to me that a difficulty might arise in that respect.
Lord Hacking: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor need not have apologised at all to the Committee for giving such clear guidance on how he sees the rights of audience progressing forward in relation to employed advocates. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that careful and forward thinking statement. It is to be welcomed that rights of audience should be extended to employed advocates, not only to those who appear in the Crown Courts but to other very well qualified lawyers in administrative bodies such as the financial services. There are some very highly qualified lawyers in the Financial Services Authority.
I also welcome the noble Lord's approach to barristers who find themselves in solicitors' employment, which is my side of the profession.

1147
Competition for the Bar is very stiff and many a bright and able young lawyer is unable to find a tenancy. We on our side of the profession are more than willing to welcome to our ranks bright and able young lawyers who have been unable to find a tenancy. For them, having become highly qualified and gone through pupillage, possibly extended pupillage, before eventually failing to find a tenancy, clearly it is wrong that they should lose their rights of audience on coming to our side of the profession. I therefore very much welcome the observations of the noble and learned Lord.
I have some concern, however, about the third matter which the noble and learned Lord explained at length: the position of employed lawyers outside such bodies as the Crown Prosecution Service, regulatory authorities and so forth; in other words, those in consultancy agencies, accountancy firms and the like. While the noble and learned Lord does not close the door in future, the difficulty lies in seeing how those lawyers can obtain rights of audience. They will certainly not get them under the umbrella of established authorised bodies. One has only to look at the history of the long debates on employed advocates and debates in the Bar Council to know of the intense opposition that is likely to arise over those lawyers being given rights of audience. I am aware of the management consultancy cited by my noble and learned friend Lord Borrie. I have seen its lawyers appearing in arbitrations where they have full rights of audience. The competence and professional ability of the lawyers in that organisation is of the highest order. The difficulty is that the authorised bodies will oppose such lawyers being given rights of audience, and their only route will be to establish themselves as an authorised body and go through that very extensive procedure before they are given rights of audience.
There is no valid argument in principle why a lawyer employed by a management consultancy should be any less able and fitted to the role of the advocate than other employed lawyers and those employed in private practice. As to that, I wholly endorse the words of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls about the need for a common code of conduct relating to the exercise of rights of audience and a common disciplinary body. That can also be incorporated into the point that I make. I ask the noble and learned Lord to give further thought to this issue. Provided every lawyer who has a right of audience is subject to a proper code of conduct and a common disciplinary body the public is properly protected and there is no injustice to the public. If there is no injustice to the public and the lawyer is in those circumstances prevented from practising his skills as an advocate it is a restrictive practice which everywhere else in the Bill my noble and learned friend is opposing.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps I may put a very simple question to the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls on the proposition that there should be a common code. For the independent criminal barrister the basic rule is that he is available under what is called the cab-rank rule to any person who requires his services, however unpleasant or unattractive the case
1148
may be, which means that the advocate must accept that brief before any other. How can that provision apply to the employed prosecuting advocate under a code?
Lord Woolf: In the code to which I referred I tried to draw a distinction between standards before the court and the restrictions to which the individual would be subject as to his client. The code to which I referred would not deal with the subject to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I welcome the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls that there should be a common code. It is perfectly possible to incorporate into the code the key features that apply to the Bar and may not at the moment apply to solicitor advocates. But there is a very strong case for having a common code. A common disciplinary tribunal is an attractive idea but needs to be looked at a little closely for a number of reasons.
At the moment there is a right of appeal from the Bar's Disciplinary Tribunal to the Visitors who are members of the judiciary. There is a right of appeal (the technical basis for which I have now forgotten) from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to the courts either under the Solicitors Act or by way of judicial review, but it matters not which. Those are different. They would have to be radically altered by statute before one could have the kind of common tribunal suggested by the noble and learned Lord. There is no doubt that it could be done. I doubt whether it could be done under the powers in this Bill. I also doubt whether it could be done by amendment of this Bill. I do not believe that there has been sufficient time in which to consider the matter in detail.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two other matters. I probably misheard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when I thought he said that a member of the Bar, who by definition has full rights of audience from the moment of legal birth, might have difficulty in getting a pupillage and would then be able to transfer to the solicitors' branch where he could not get a pupillage. I do not believe that he could do that. It would not solve the problem because the same rule about requiring pupillage before exercising rights of advocacy would apply to all members of the Bar. Therefore, it would not fall within this exception. However, I may have misheard the noble and learned Lord. If he said "tenancy" that would be a different matter because that would be correct.
On Tuesday of this week, in the debate on employed lawyers, the noble and learned Lord said:
"Some Members of the Committee may be tempted by the argument that someone who is paid a salary by the state cannot be truly independent. All that is needed to refute that argument is to look at the position of the judges whose independence is not questioned. The senior professional judiciary are full-time salaried servants of the Crown".—[Official Report, 26/1/99; col. 1006.]
They are not; they are office-holders, which is substantially different. Furthermore, they are virtually irremovable. Above all, on becoming judges they join a college, as it were, with a very long established view of the importance of independence not only as a body but

1149
individually. No judge, however distinguished, can give any instructions whatever to any other judge. One is considering here personal independence.
Some years ago when I was concerned with industrial relations I recall a very distinguished Member of this House who at that time was a Secretary of State, saying to me, "To whom are you responsible as President?" I understood him to be referring to the National Industrial Relations Court. He said, "I take it that you are responsible to the Lord Chief Justice". I said, "Certainly not". He said, "Then, to the Lord Chancellor". I said, "Certainly not. I am responsible solely to my conscience and to the law." That is a cultural independence that does not exist elsewhere and no parallels can be drawn with it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: We seem to have moved away from the issue of principle about employed barristers to issues of standards. Issues of standards are of the greatest importance. I was proposing to make one or two comments about that in the debate on whether the Clause shall stand part, but as the question has been raised perhaps I shall be forgiven for dealing with it now.
A code of conduct, yes; a disciplinary body, yes: those matters are comparatively easy to establish. The real problem is the practical one of ensuring that breaches of the code of conduct are discovered, brought to the attention of the disciplinary body and dealt with. I have in mind the fact that at the Bar such matters are dealt with not only by the Bar Council's disciplinary bodies or by the Inns of Court disciplinary bodies, but also in an informal and effective way. Any member of the Bar who prosecutes and then breaches what might be thought to be in a code of conduct—if there were a formal code—will find, the Bar being a comparatively small profession, that his deficiencies are immediately observed by his colleagues. The matter will be brought immediately to the attention of the head of chambers, who will take action, or it will be brought to the attention of the leader of the circuit, who will take action. It is also not unknown for a wise judge to send for a young man after a case and politely and firmly explain the position.
Therefore, in due course, breaches of a code of conduct can come to the attention, if necessary, of a disciplinary body. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to indicate, in some little detail, not only the nature of the code and the nature of the disciplinary body, but also the machinery for its operation.
I understand that pilot schemes are under consideration. Would the noble and learned Lord say a word about the extent of the proposal in relation to pilot schemes and how they will operate? I venture to assume that when the noble and learned Lord examines the results of the pilot schemes he will want to look not only at the forensic ability of those who have been granted new rights of audience, but also, to use a rather pompous expression, the ethical ability of those granted new rights of audience. I suspect that if and when he does
1150
that, he will find that he has to hasten rather slowly and not extend rights of audience too rapidly and too extensively.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is absolutely imperative that, before doing that, he should be totally satisfied that the ethical rules of conduct of the legal profession, particularly when carrying out prosecutions, are observed by newcomers to the profession.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember that I mentioned the problem of the machinery of quality control in reference to a previous amendment. The noble and learned Lord said that either he would give consideration to that or he would deal with it subsequently in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the same point. Perhaps it would be convenient for the noble and learned Lord to deal with it in outline at this stage.
While I am on my feet, I most respectfully say that I wholly support everything said by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall endeavour to pick up a few threads of the arguments raised in debate. Then I shall deal with the important proposal brought to your Lordships' attention for the first time today by the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked a question about the ambit of the rules of the professional bodies. I suspect that it was a question that came into his head as he was listening to the discussion and he thought that it would be good to know the answer. I shall certainly not give the noble Lord an assurance about the ambit of professional rules without having them in front of me or indeed without consulting on how they are applied in practice. I would have thought that they might be applied in practice so that an advocate employed by a company may appear for his employer, the company, and other subsidiaries within the group. However, I think that calls for investigation by reference to the rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, sought to tax the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls with a question on whether the "cab rank" rule would not apply to the Crown Prosecution Service. The "cab rank" rule is one of the glories of the Bar. It underscores that every member of the Bar is obliged, without fear or favour, to represent clients who offer themselves, regardless of how unpopular they may be in the community or elsewhere. However, Crown prosecutors are employed by the Crown Prosecution Service, and therefore appear on behalf of their employer only; so the "cab rank" rule has no application.
I entirely take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. High Court judges are office holders and can be removed only by address of both Houses of Parliament. That underpins their independence. The much larger number of Crown Court

1151
judges can, by statute, be removed by the Lord Chancellor for misconduct. However, I take the noble and learned Lord's point.
I now turn to the matter brought to the Committee's attention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Before responding, I express my gratitude to him for ensuring that notice was given to me earlier today of his intention to raise such questions. However, I do not regard myself as being in a position to make a fully considered response. Therefore, I shall not offer the detail that I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would prefer as my reaction to the proposal. For some reasons that I shall give. with respect, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the waters are slightly deeper than the apparent straightforwardness that his question suggests. In that regard, I identify with the cautionary note struck by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington.
The Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, suggested in our debate on Second Reading,
"that rights of audience should be exercised only by those who possess the required knowledge, skill and integrity, and"—
he added—
"who are subject to a common code of conduct and discipline".—[Official Report, 14/12/98; col. 1 1 26.]
Advocates are not subject to a common code of conduct and discipline at present. Solicitors, barristers and legal executives—as we must now add—the three kinds of authorised advocate that currently exist, all have their own rules of conduct and their own disciplinary procedures.
Solicitors, for example, have a special code for advocacy as part of their rules. The requirement of Section 17(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which will not be changed by the Bill as it presently stands. is that an advocate must belong to an authorised body which has rules of conduct which are appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice. But the authorised body must have an effective mechanism for enforcing those rules—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred—and that it must be likely to enforce them. All three bodies which are authorised to grant rights of audience to their members meet those criteria today.
All advocates are also subject to a requirement imposed by Section 17(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act that they may not withhold their services on the grounds that the case is objectionable (that harks back to the cab rank rule); that the conduct, opinions or belief of the client are unacceptable (which similarly harks back to the cab rank rule); or on any ground relating to the source of any proper financial support received by the client.
Any new authorised body will be subject to the same provisions. No new body could be authorised if it did not have satisfactory rules of conduct and disciplinary mechanisms. One of the purposes of the legal services consultative panel, the Director-General of Fair Trading, and the designated judges under the new approval
1152
procedure to be created by the Bill, will be to give advice on whether satisfactory rules and procedures are in place.
Therefore, as matters stand at present, if the authorised bodies wish to pool their experience and expertise and draw up a common code, that would be for them. While I would judge any code on its merits, my instinctive reaction is that there is much to be said for such a common code; and my instinct would be to give it my blessing, basically for the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. However, there are potential problems. For example, barristers in private practice do not give members of the public direct access to their services; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, emphasised, they operate the cab rank rule. Other advocates need not practise in that way.
I understand, although I have not looked into the matter in any detail, that the Bar Council and the Law Society at one time considered establishing a joint code of conduct for advocates. But the problems on which I have touched were thought of at that time to be insuperable. If I overstate that, I shall be corrected, but that is as I recall the position. There may be some who would suggest that in establishing a common disciplinary code there may be an implication to enforce a common code of conduct; that it was a step on the road towards the fusion of the legal profession. Obviously that does not begin to be necessarily so, but when some think that we move into deep waters.
At present the Bill does not give me any express powers, as I see it, to impose a common code or common disciplinary procedures on the professional bodies. My only powers will be to approve changes which the professions make in their rules; and, with—and only with—the approval of both Houses of Parliament, to alter any rules which unduly restrict rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation. I would not oppose proposals from the professional bodies to adopt a common code and disciplinary procedure if they wish but I should have thought that the initiative lay more with them than with me. However, I accept that the tenor of what came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was rather different. I believe that he went rather further, inviting me to consider acquiring powers to impose the outcome that he recommends in default of agreement among the professions. Again, I think that these are deep waters, but I should be happy to enter into discussions with him on the subject between now and Report.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Woolf: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that helpful response to the points I made. Like the noble and learned Lord, I recognise that these are deep waters. I fear that the proposals for extension of rights of audience also involve putting a substantial part of one's body into deep waters. I suggest that it is another area where serious consideration has to

1153
be given to what could be an important consequence of extension of the rights of audience to the extent envisaged by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in the debate. It is a debate, if I may say so, which will well repay reading in detail tomorrow. I was only trying to be helpful. I thought that I was suggesting a simple answer to a simple drafting problem. One cannot be right all the time! I plead only in mitigation that I set down the amendment at the instigation of the Bar Council, which obviously shared that rather simplistic view at one stage.
Clearly there are genuine problems. We seem to be wholly in agreement that employed lawyers should be capable of being accorded rights of audience. Two questions then arise. First, how should they be subjected to the standards which are applied to other applicants'? It seems to be agreed that it should be left substantially to the rules of conduct of professional bodies. If I may say so respectfully, I wish the proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls well. However, like my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor I remember when the professions were less attracted to such suggestions. It may be that we have travelled far even in the past five years and have learned something along the way. I hope that the learned and noble Lord has begun something which may gather momentum.
The second question which arises is whether, subject to those standards, it is agreed that an employed lawyer may appear to represent anyone, however unconnected with his employer, in proceedings however unconnected with his employer's business. Clearly there may be some inroads on the general principle as was indicated by my noble friend Lord Borrie. But I suspect that we shall need to reflect on that in somewhat greater tranquillity than is possible at present.
These questions are intellectually stimulating. They are also of great importance to the public. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 19, line 11, leave out ("circumstances") and insert ("capacity").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 238 and 239 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 239A:
Page 19, line 19, leave out from ("or") to end of line 26 and insert—
("(b) he is otherwise employed in a capacity which involves his appearing before courts.'"').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 19, line 26, at end insert—
("(5) A person employed as an advocate in accordance with subsection (3) shall only be permitted to prosecute a case being tried on indictment which—

(a) falls within class 4 of the classification of the Business of the Crown Court and Allocation to Crown Court Centres Directions: and

(b) has been released by the Presiding Judge of a Circuit, in accordance with those Directions, for trial by a Circuit Judge, Recorder or Assistant Recorder."").

The noble Lord said: The purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that the more important criminal cases are prosecuted by independent advocates. The noble and learned Lord will recall that late in the third day of Committee a considerable amount of time was devoted to arguments against the granting of rights to CPS advocates in the Crown Court. I shall not rehearse those arguments again today.
The main reason for questioning the merits of the move were well explained in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He emphasised, in particular, the danger of a conflict of interests between the duties of a member of the Crown Prosecution Service to his employer and his duties to the court. I entirely share the noble Lord's concerns and wish to raise only two other issues. They go to the original motives expressed by the noble and learned Lord last year when he first suggested the changes which are now contained in the Bill. Those motives were saving money and enhancing competition.
I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord, first, how he believes money will be saved by a shift from using independent advocates to prosecute to using advocates in the Crown Prosecution Service. It is well known that in many respects the cost burden of employing someone on a salary, with all the related overhead expenses, can be much higher than using someone who is self-employed.
The second issue relates to competition. During the past 20 years, it has been accepted in the United Kingdom and in many other countries that the best way to enhance competition is by a process of privatisation. But here we must assume that implied into the change is the claim that the best way to promote competition is by increasing nationalisation; because the greater the number of cases advocated in the Crown Courts by employees of the CPS the greater will be the degree of nationalisation. How will the noble and learned Lord ensure there is competition between the CPS advocate on the one hand and the independent practitioner on the other?
There is a great deal of case law in the courts of the European Community about competition between private and state entities. We all know to what extent states can subtlety undermine competition in the market by giving state aid of one form or another. Therefore, apart from the important point of principle, which was well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I should like to hear the noble and learned

1155
Lord's views on the issues of saving costs and competition to the extent that he feels able to express them at this juncture. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I do not propose to rehearse again the argument which I entered into in the early hours of Wednesday to a hard core of dedicated people. I shall reserve that for a later stage of the Bill. However, perhaps I may ask two questions arising from the amendment.
I referred on Wednesday morning to the current pilot schemes whereby members of the Crown Prosecution Service are prosecuting in the Crown Court. I know of it in the Mold Crown Court in my own area and wonder whether the powers given to them have gone any further than those suggested in paragraph (a) of the amendment and whether they have been under the control of the presiding judge of a circuit as suggested in paragraph (b). I repeat my request for information as to whether there has been any assessment of the success of the experiments which are being carried out with the CPS.
The Lord Chancellor: First, noble Lords should bear in mind that I am not responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service. The Attorney-General is the Minister responsible. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will look in vain in Hansard for any proposition from me that the justification for extending rights of audience to CPS prosecutors was the saving of money. I have never ever said that.
First, my budget is entirely distinct from the budget of the Crown Prosecution Service and I concede that my budget will be completely unaffected by the removal of a restrictive practice affecting employees of the CPS in order to extend their rights of audience. Throughout, I have addressed the principle of the matter and the objectionable nature of the restrictive practices in principle.
I would now like to address the actual subject matter of the noble Lord's amendment. It is intended to limit the cases in which employed advocates can prosecute in the Crown Court. In practice, it would apply principally to Crown prosecutors. The amendment would limit them to the least serious category of cases which are tried in the Crown Court; Class 4 cases. These are defined in the practice direction on the classification of the business of the Crown Court as cases involving offences of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent; robbery or assault with intent to rob; incitement or conspiracy to commit these offences; conspiracy at common law; conspiracy to commit any offence other than a Class 1 or a Class 2 offence; and all offences which are triable either way.
For the benefit of the Committee, perhaps I should explain that Class 1 offences are the most serious; for example, treason and murder. Class 2 offences include manslaughter and rape. Class 3 offences cover those triable only on indictment which are not in Classes 1, 2 or 4. Perjury would be an example. Class 4 offences can be tried by a High Court judge, a circuit judge, a recorder or assistant recorder, but they would normally be tried by a High Court judge and cannot be listed for trial by a High Court judge without his permission or
1156
that of a presiding judge. I believe that by a slip of the tongue I said that Class 4 offences would normally be tried by a High Court judge; I should of course have said that they would not normally be tried by a High Court judge without the special permission to which I referred.
The amendment would also ensure that if a Class 4 case were listed before a High Court judge, a Crown prosecutor could not appear before him. I cannot see any case for this amendment, even from the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It seems to be that either Crown prosecutors and other employed lawyers are qualified to appear in the higher courts or they are not. I know that some of your Lordships oppose all rights of audience for employed lawyers in the higher courts. That seems to me to be a position which, although I do not accept it, is intellectually coherent. The proposition that Crown prosecutors should be able to appear in some Crown Court cases but not in others does not appear to me to be principled. It rather appears to me to be clearly designed to create a no-go category of a significant legal category of work in the Crown Court for everyone but the Bar. I cannot regard that as defensible.
The Government's firm view is that Crown prosecution and other employed lawyers are eminently qualified to appear in the higher courts. After all, they are qualified barristers or solicitors who have met the normal requirements for exercising rights of audience in the higher courts and are members of professional bodies with effective codes of conduct and disciplinary mechanisms. I do not accept that Crown prosecutors are second-rate lawyers who should be statutorily confined to the lesser classes of criminal work.
No doubt some Crown prosecutors will prove to have a greater aptitude for higher court advocacy than others. But that is no different from barristers in private practice. Crown prosecutors are subject to the same standards as their equivalents in private practice. Furthermore, by opening up their rights of audience in the higher courts, this Bill will make a career in public service more attractive to very able advocates. I do not accept that there is any sensible reason for preventing such advocates from appearing before a High Court judge in a criminal case.
If the real motive behind the amendment is to reserve an area of work for the Bar, then I must say that it is unnecessary as well as being wrong in principle. In practice, in my view, there is no possibility of the CPS taking over the majority of the prosecution work in the Crown Court as it does not have the manpower to do that. But it is not appropriate to reserve by statute certain areas of work to the privately practising Bar.
There is another flaw in the amendment but it is technical. It is contingent upon the existence of a particular practice direction which was made by the late Lord Taylor with the concurrence of my noble and learned predecessor in 1995. That practice direction provides for the existence of Class 4 cases and defines what they are. But my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Lord Chief Justice, could revoke or change the practice direction at any time, and with my concurrence. The amendment would

1157
then be rendered meaningless. On those grounds, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
I prefer to write definitively to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the subject of pilot schemes. I shall give him my present understanding of the present situation but I do not wish to be tied to it. I believe that the pilot schemes to which he refers allow solicitor advocates in the Crown Prosecution Service to exercise their current limited rights of audience in preliminary proceedings in the Crown Court. Because of the current state of the rules, to which, as the noble Lord knows, the Government fundamentally object, they are not even allowed to appear in a substantive hearing on their own. Therefore, pilot schemes cannot extend further than I have just described. However, I prefer to write more comprehensively to the noble Lord on that subject.
5 p.m.
Lord Hacking: I agree with my noble and learned friend. Perhaps I may add one short rider of my own. There can be no better example of the saving of time and duplication of legal effort than when a plea is to be tendered by an accused before the Crown Court or the High Court. That seems to be an occasion on which it would be sensible for a member of the Crown Prosecution Service to appear directly before the court. The effect of this amendment would prevent that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said in answer to my query. But perhaps I may turn to the substance of the amendment. The noble and learned Lord does not seem to recognise gradations in the experience of Crown Prosecution Service employees. His argument is that once they are entitled to appear in the Crown Court, they are entitled to appear for all purposes.
Gradations are recognised in the judiciary. There are assistant recorders, recorders, circuit judges and High Court judges, each of whom has his area of responsibility and the lesser cannot take on the role of the greater. The gradations are recognised.
When it comes to the independent Bar, a barrister who is employed to prosecute is subject to the discipline or restriction of the fact that he is instructed to do so by the Crown Prosecution Service. He is instructed because he has the necessary expertise to take on the case which the Crown Prosecution Service wishes to be prosecuted.
There is a danger that a Crown prosecutor may instruct himself to appear in a case which is way beyond his capacity. I do not welcome the use of the phrase "restrictive practices" and the criticism that we wish to defend them. That is not the case. We are concerned to ensure that prosecutions are carried out properly in those courts; that guilty people are convicted and innocent people are acquitted. It happens to be that most of us with experience in that field, from all parties, take the
1158
view that some of the provisions militate against that aim. That is the purpose of the criticisms which we make.
The Lord Chancellor: We can carry forward this argument in wearisome detail. I should have found that point more impressive from the noble Lord if the current position, as it affects the Bar, was not as it is. Today, the day after a barrister emerges from his pupillage with full rights of audience, he can prosecute or defend a murder at the Old Bailey or appear in your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, if fortunate enough to be briefed at any of those levels. There is no restriction whatever on that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: With the greatest respect, the noble and learned Lord has not appreciated my argument. I am sure it is my fault. No Crown prosecuting service will instruct a newly-fledged barrister to appear in a murder case or in the House of Lords. That is why there is that control. The difference with a Crown prosecuting service employee is that he instructs himself and may instruct himself to do more than he is capable of.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may say with respect, and without wearying the Committee, that the noble Lord makes my point for me. Just as I doubt that a solicitor, on my first day in fully-fledged practice, would instruct me in an appeal to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, nor would the chief Crown prosecutor sanction a prosecutor prosecuting a murder, although he had full rights of audience, if he was comparatively inexperienced. Those matters are dealt with by the sensible judgment of those who, in private practice, brief barristers with full rights of audience. The chief Crown prosecutor will determine the allocation of business according to appropriate experience. The noble Lord makes my point for me.
Lord Kingsland: In thanking the noble and learned Lord for his reply may I say first of all that there is no suggestion lying behind this amendment that the employees of the Crown Prosecution Service, while legally qualified, are in any way second rate. That is not something that is implied in that amendment and it is certainly not something that I believe. The basis for the objection is, I repeat, the danger of conflict of interest.
I listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord said about his budget, and of course I entirely accept that his budget will not be affected by this change. But somebody else's budget will be and therefore the taxpayer will be. I should have thought that one of the matters to which the noble and learned Lord ought to have addressed his attention in respect of the budgetary implications of what he is doing is other parts of public expenditure. He did not address, and I can quite understand why, the competition points I made. I therefore wish to think about those and perhaps come back at Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if, for the information of the Committee,

1159
he will clarify why he does not think that Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are in theory lawyers but is concerned with the conflict of interest. If Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are affected by conflict of interest, is his true position that none of them should have any rights of audience?
Lord Kingsland: As far as my amendment goes, I do not know whether they would be affected by conflict of interest because they are not yet in that position. What I am saying is that there is a danger that they would be. That is the substance of my argument. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 31, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: Shortly before midnight on Tuesday I was unsuccessfully addressing the Committee on the desirability of removing Clause 30 which deals with rights of audience of barristers and solicitors. Although I failed in persuading your Lordships to remove Clause 30, I think I succeeded, partially with the help of the correspondence which was referred to as passing between my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and his predecessor, in establishing that the consequences of what is proposed in Clause 30 would be a reduction in the quality of the advocates who emerge. This follows quite simply from the fact that only 1 per cent. have sought to do advocacy, despite their entitlement, for the last five years, and the high proportion of failures in regard to tests which their own organisation thought appropriate. Therefore, for the rights of audience by solicitors to be extensive, standards inevitably would have to come down and the courts would be the unhappy recipients of that drop in quality.
In regard to Clause 31, which deals with rights of audience of employed advocates, I should be able to demonstrate the same though by a different route. I accept that the 1990 Act was intended to allow solicitors in private practice to obtain the right to appear in any court, subject always to their being properly qualified and trained to exercise those rights.
With deep respect, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was in error in his foreword to the Way Ahead paper in saying in the third paragraph that the 1990 Act was also intended to enable employed lawyers such as Crown prosecutors to appear in the higher courts. I say that because on 22nd February 1990, on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said:
"This Bill sets up a framework under which matters of rights of audience and the conditions under which they can be exercised are to be determined in the light of advice from an independent advisory committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with rules to be proposed by the professional bodies, which will become effective only if they are approved by the four heads of division, the designated judges, and the Lord Chancellor. That is what we are concerned with. There is no question of my having put forward this Bill in order to bring rights of prosecution to the Crown Prosecution Service except in accordance with decisions taken under that machinery".—[Official Report, 22/2/90; col. 41.]
1160
At col. 413, he added:
"I entirely accept the view that there are important considerations as to what extent any part of the prosecution service—that refers not just to the CPS but to all prosecuting authorities—should use salaried employees to present cases at any stage".
He made it perfectly clear that this particular question was a debatable one and that the debate would have to be concluded before the prosecution authorities could establish any right of audience. It was generally accepted that the extension of rights of audience in the higher courts to employees was highly debatable.
In the judges' response to the Green Paper in 1989, paragraph 91, it was stated that any such extension of rights of audience would have the following disadvantages:
"(a) An advocate who is an employed lawyer would have a personal interest in the success of the case he was presenting since he might believe that his chances of promotion depended on his success. In consequence he would be subject to conflict between his duties to the court and his interest in furthering his case. The Government recognise the problem but believe it should be possible for appropriate codes of conduct to guard against the conflict of duty and interest. The judges are not so optimistic.
(b) At present one of the protections for those charged with serious criminal offences is that the advocate having the conduct of the prosecution is independent of the prosecuting authority. An employed prosecutor, whether in the Crown Prosecution Service or another department, may be tempted to press for a conviction in a way which is foreign to the English criminal trial system.
(c) An adversarial system of trial makes it desirable that advocates in the criminal court should have experience both of prosecuting and defending. Such experience helps the advocate to be open minded and to present his client's case in a way which at all times reflects his duty to the court".
That was said in 1989.
Professor Zander has not been known for his affection for the Bar or for his desire that the status quo remains but he wrote a powerful letter to The Times on 18th December. Among his observations are these:
"In the Crown Court study I conducted for the Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice during 1993, we asked respondents to bring to the attention of the commission any matter of concern. The main general concern identified by prosecuting barristers was disagreements with and undue pressure from the CPS on individual cases. At present, such disagreements and pressure are dealt with by discussion between the barrister and the CPS representative. If the CPS has and exercises full rights of audience, that created tension between differing views would be lost. The decision as to how to handle the case, whether to accept a plea in itself on what charges, etc. would be handled by the CPS alone. In my view that will result in a regrettable deterioration of decision making in serious criminal cases. The loss will be in the quality of that elusive concept, justice".
When I made my submission on Clause 30, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, moved over from commenting on Section 30 to Section 31. I want to criticise strongly one specific comment and, in doing so, I recognise the great ability of the noble and learned Lord but also that, like many others at the Bar—both past and present—one is sometimes given a case with which one wholly disagrees, but which it is one's obligation to put forward.

1161
In moving over to Section 31, the noble and learned Lord said this:
"Those restrictions on employed barristers and solicitors are unjustified. They are the worst kind of restrictive practice—designed simply to protect the work and incomes of privately practising barristers, with no shred of benefit to the public".—[Official Report, 26/1/99; col. 997.]
I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord was obliged to carry out his instructions and I sympathise with him. But that was a wholly unjustified observation redolent of one of the unfortunate features of excessive power; namely, arrogance. It overlooked what I had already said in relation to the judge's comments on the Green Paper, but it also overlooks a great deal of back history and, briefly, I shall draw attention to part of that.
When the Crown Courts were created in 1971 the Courts Act empowered the Lord Chancellor to give directions on the respective rights of audience of barristers and solicitors in the Crown Court. In giving his first direction under the Act, the Lord Chancellor of the day—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—said in the House of Lords on 9th February 1972,
"I find no sufficient reason for altering the present balance between the Bar and the solicitors' profession in the conduct of prosecutions, whether by public authorities or private individuals. I must also emphasise that I regard the presentation of a prosecution case in the higher courts by counsel, properly instructed by a solicitor, as an added safeguard of individual freedom since it involves that a second opinion is always brought to bear".—[Official Report, 9/2/72; col. 1139.]
The matter was considered by Lord Benson in the Benson Commission. At paragraphs 18.43 to 18.45 of his report he said this:
"In one significant aspect the arrangements serve what many of us regard as an important public purpose by ensuring that in the Crown Court the case for the prosecution is put by an advocate who is independent both of the police and the prosecuting authority. Whatever the outcome of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure [the Phillips Commission] we think that the effect of the present arrangements on prosecuting work should not be disturbed. It provides in every case an advocate from the available range of private practising barristers who is seen by the court, the accused and the public at large, to be independent of the police and the prosecuting authorities; one who, by the nature of his training and daily practice, is more likely to be able to bring the essential quality of detachment and balance to bear on the problem in the individual case. These are considerations that we regard as crucial, not only to the actual conduct of a jury trial, but also the proper administration of justice in general, including the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings, the acceptance of proposed pleas of guilty and the proper handling of evidential problems".
Is that an example of the worst kind of restrictive practice? Is that a restrictive practice designed simply to protect the work and income of private practitioners? Can it be said that that practice contains no shred of benefit to the public?
I wish to make a few other short points. The Phillips Commission was split, but the majority came out in favour of retaining the status quo. The Government's response to the Benson Royal Commission report was presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor in a White Paper which agreed with the observations of the Benson Commission; that is, that there should be no general extension of rights of audience for solicitors. The White Paper also accepted the recommendation of
1162
the Royal Commission which was published by the Government in regard to rights of audience. As a consequence of the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, the Government introduced a draft Bill—the Prosecution of Offences Bill—into the House of Lords in the autumn of 1984. On 29th November 1984, when introducing the Second Reading, the Minister of State (then the noble Lord, Lord Elton) said,
"I should emphasise that the Government hold strongly to the view that rights of audience in Crown Court trials should continue to be confined to an independent Bar which both prosecutes and defends".—[Official Report, 29/11/84; col. 1017.]
He wrote a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on 12th December 1984 saying,
"There is no intention to extend these rights of audience any further; for example, to include the conduct of criminal trials before the Crown Court. In this connection the Government have recently reaffirmed their acceptance of the Benson Commission's recommendation that, in general, rights of audience in the Crown Court should be the preserve of the independent Bar".
It is interesting to note that the right honourable John Morris, as he then was, in a debate on the Bill in the House of Commons when he was shadow Attorney-General, said:
"Despite the Government's assurances, I fear the long-term future, perhaps not so long of the criminal Bar. What will happen when the Treasury gets its hands on that? Who can put his hand on his heart and say that in five or 10 years' time there will not be a Rayner Report, or something of that ilk, which advocates more and more inhouse work? I fear that that will be the Treasury approach as sure as night follows day and that it would strike at the heart of an independent profession which I believe to be one of the bastions of liberty".
He had considerable foresight because I believe that there has been considerable Treasury input into what is proposed. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee was expected to produce a recommendation that the employed lawyer should have a right of audience and it was a matter of deep sadness to the Government when it was discovered that the independent advisory committee was a great deal more independent than they had anticipated.
The report of the advisory committee, by a majority, proposed no rights of audience for the Crown Prosecution Service. It is a lengthy and closely-reasoned document. Nowhere has it been referred to, even by way of a cut-down description. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, which I have emphasised, show the shallowness of the Government's approach to the consequences of what they propose. I oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hacking: The central point identified by the noble and learned Lord in his opposition to the use of employed lawyers is the vested interest point. He quoted from the paper that the judges issued in reply to the Green Papers on access to justice published last summer. Here they put the argument, as precisely submitted to Members of the Committee by the noble and learned Lord, that a lawyer in the Crown Prosecution Service would have a vested interest in success because it would affect and benefit his chances of promotion.

1163
I have argued this before with the noble and learned Lord. In every case, whether you are a barrister or a solicitor, you have a vested interest in success. Success brings you more cases and a greater income. Crown prosecutors at the Old Bailey have a vested interest in success because they get bigger and better cases, and more well paid cases. Every barrister in private practice has a vested interest in success because his practice will improve. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord had an illustrious career at the Bar. I remember him well as a senior member of the Bar after I had been admitted. His practice went far because he was successful and had the good habit of winning cases. That is always a factor in the practice of law. But what every barrister and solicitor does when appearing before the court is to put the interest of justice first. He lays aside that vested interest in success because he has an overriding duty to the court.
It is a fatuous argument. It is most surprising that it is produced again and again and has apparently been produced in the judges' paper.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the clause. I should like to support all that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said. I remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that at Second Reading he said that he had not come upon any rational argument that could be advanced against salaried prosecutors. I do not know whether he takes the view that the Benson Report, the other Royal Commission, and the whole of the noble and learned Lord's speech today are all irrational. It is true that throughout the debate on this matter the noble and learned Lord has not dealt with the arguments put forward at length in the reports of the two Royal Commissions and, indeed, in other places.
The amendments to the clause dealing with salaried prosecutors, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, were dealt with after midnight yesterday. That was thought proper by the Government despite the knowledge that the issue of the rights of audience of salaried prosecutors was highly controversial and the opposite side of the coin to the issue of salaried defenders which took up two hours of the time of the Committee and attracted no fewer than 15 speakers.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has inveighed repeatedly against this ploy of taking controversial clauses in a Bill at a time when it is known perfectly well to the Government that almost no noble Lords will be present—in fact, there were only three or four. I regret to say that that ploy will not save any time at all. The arguments which could not be put on that occasion by me, because I could not possibly have been here, will be put now.
One of the remarks which the noble and learned Lord made to an almost empty Chamber in the early hours of the morning, echoing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has just said, was that these amendments can be recognised as a set of special pleadings by the Bar. That, I suggest, is simply to lower the level of debate and to mislead Members of the Committee who have the advantage of not being lawyers. At my age, and 15 years after retirement, I do not come to this House to
1164
peddle trade union trivialities, nor do either of my noble friends on our Front Bench, nor the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I would add that neither do the two most distinguished Members of the criminal Bar on the other side of the Chamber. I refer to the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Kennedy.
I deprecate the constant disparagement coming from the Government Front Bench and, indeed, the proximate Back Bench, of the criminal advocate and the constant harping on about restrictive practices and money. There is a pejorative use of the words "restrictive practices" which we all understand. Many restrictive practices are absolutely essential in any profession to ensure suitable and appropriate expertise.
The clause is wrong as a matter of principle; one which, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has been debated and considered over many years. The Lord Chancellor knows perfectly well that the overwhelming majority of all those who are involved in the actual practice and study of the criminal law—that is, barristers, solicitors and academics—are against the aims of the clause and are deeply concerned about its implications. The Bar has not objected to the clause giving rights of audience to solicitors. We are all involved in this matter together: all lawyers and advocates on the criminal side. What we are considering is the question of the independence and the whole-time commitment of the prosecuting advocate, whoever he or she may be. It is simply ridiculous to describe this debate as a trade union debate in relation to the Bar.
Today, in the higher courts with judge and jury, where the citizen is in jeopardy of losing his liberty and reputation for a very long period of time, prosecutions are placed in the hands of responsible, whole-time advocates who are wholly independent of state, police and government departments. The advocates are the mirror image of the judges who try the cases and who must depend on the advocate to make it possible for them to carry out their duties. These advocates seek, with varying degrees of success, to display the same essential qualities which are to be found on the Bench; namely, independence and integrity. As we have recently seen, for a judge independence means having no special interest which might appear to dilute his independence or his impartiality.
Exactly the same principle applies to the prosecutor in the higher courts. He must act throughout as a minister of justice, presenting the facts fairly and without passion before the jury. His only motive must be the interests of justice; he is not parti pris and he must be detached. That is the tradition in England and Wales in the criminal courts. If I may say so, it is that which keeps the criminal process uncorrupt and fair. This may be denigrated by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, with his tales of tittle-tattle in his robing room in Leicestershire—wholly unrecognisable to such a dinosaur as myself. However, whatever may be rightly said about delays and imperfections in the criminal process, a criminal trial in this country remains the most uncorrupt and the most fair in the civilised world and is recognised as such.

1165
Prosecutors here are perceived by defendants and the public for what they are and for what they are not. They are not civil servants and they are not subject to the pressure of preferment. They do not have conflicts of interest between duty to employer and duty to the court. They have no direct access, and they are available to appear for the defence. That is the situation today. They do not claim, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, (who, we all appreciate, is part of the Lord Chancellor's team) seems to think, some spiritual calling or some mystical relationship with each other. Similarly, they do not consider themselves, as the noble Lord seems to think—although, for all I know, this may apply in Leicester—superior to teachers or doctors. On the contrary, teachers and doctors are the colleagues of prosecuting and defending barristers and solicitors in the criminal court. They, too, have a vocational approach to their work: namely, that there is more in the work than just money.
Of course the independent prosecutor must act on instructions and must consult before making crucial decisions; but, finally, the decision and responsibility is his and his alone. Even if he is Treasury counsel, his place of work—all "Treasury counsel" means is that he in fact holds himself open to give the Director of Public Prosecutions priority in his work—is in a group of other sole practitioners at arm's length from the police, from the witnesses, from politicians, from civil servants and from all those who may apply pressure or seek to influence. He must be available at all times to those who require his services.
Once that advocate is employed and salaried, working daily and solely in a department with its own culture and preparing cases from start to finish in the closest proximity and co-operation with the police (and their culture), or with government departments, local authorities, or indeed in corporations, carrying out their instructions, he cannot possibly be anything other than partisan. When the question of a code was suggested in our earlier discussions with the noble and learned Lord, it very quickly became a matter of our getting into "deep waters"—that is, deep waters because of everything that I have just said. There is no possibility of having a code which can cover those two forms of advocacy in conducting prosecutions. Every criminal advocate knows that in-house lawyers—that is lawyers from the DTI, from the Inland Revenue and from Customs & Excise—are clearly and fiercely partisan. Indeed, it is the whole of one's experience. Of course that is so; they are there in order to further the perceived interests of their own departments.
With the greatest respect, it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will simply not face up to these points. If I may say so, some of his justifications in his midnight argument for the salaried prosecutor almost descended into farce. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has already dealt with the first argument that judges are paid by the state and they are independent; therefore, why are prosecutors in the office of the DPP not equally independent? The noble and learned Lord shot down that argument.
1166
The noble and learned Lord's second argument was that salaried lawyers prosecute in the magistrates' court, so why on earth should they not do so before judge and jury? Members of the Committee will appreciate that police officers conducted their own cases in the magistrates' courts only a short time ago. No one that I know of has suggested that they should conduct cases in the Central Criminal Court.
The noble and learned Lord's final argument really proves the point that I am seeking to make. He said how bizarre it was to suggest that Dame Barbara Mills should forfeit her right to appear in the higher courts on her appointment as Director of Public Prosecutions. There it is. It is the job; it is not the personality that we are talking about. Will it really be suggested by the noble and learned Lord that Dame Barbara Mills is eminently suited to go down to the Central Criminal Court and conduct her own murder cases in front of the High Court judge? Further, will it be suggested that, when he was Home Secretary. Mr. Kenneth Clark, QC should have gone down to the Old Bailey and conducted official secrets cases? Is it the suggestion that once you are a barrister you are a barrister and you should have full rights of audience? I suggest that it is not the personality and the qualifications; it is the job that you are doing which makes it wholly inappropriate.

Finally, I should like to return to a particular point because it illustrates what I am saying to the hilt. I ask the noble and learned Lord to read the Scott Report if he has not already done so. The Scott Report is a monument to the crucial role of the independent prosecutor. The Matrix Churchill case in a nutshell concerned the suggestion by the Government that this company and its managing director, Mr Henderson, were deceiving the Government by putting forward licences which were in themselves deceitful in sending military goods to Iraq. The Attorney-General instructed Ministers that they were to sign certificates to say that the internal documents in each department could not be disclosed to the defence because that would be against the interests of the state and, as regards MI6, would put innocent persons' lives at risk. The gentleman's defence was that Ministers knew perfectly well what was implied in the licences, that they tipped the wink as regards the form of the licences, and that far from being deceitful he was going to Iraq and giving information to MI6 which was of the greatest possible value to the Government.
The prosecuting counsel was instructed to urge the judge to maintain that ban on those internal documents which would prove the innocence of this man and his company. His instructions were to urge the judge to do that. One of the Ministers, the only Minister who was not a member of the Bar—the other three all were, and two of them were Queen's Counsel—objected to signing the document because he could see perfectly plainly that the documents would be of use to the defence. He requested that that objection should be conveyed to the judge. What did Scott find? First, he found that there was no justification for those certificates. Secondly, he found that the judge had never been told—because prosecuting counsel had never been told—of the Minister's objection to signing the certificate. Thirdly,

1167
he found that the law that he was told to uphold in court based on the civil law was entirely unapplicable to a criminal case. Fourthly, he found that lawyers in the departments concerned took the course of holding back documents rather than applying their minds to whether or not they would help the defence. Finally, he found that government lawyers altered witness statements in order to fit in with the departmental policy.
Could there be any more condemnatory example of what happens when lawyers act for the Government, and when even trained barristers are in political positions? Luckily, counsel for the Crown, Mr Moses, behaved as one hopes independent counsel would do. When he saw that there was a possible miscarriage of justice ahead of him, he, totally on his own initiative, decided that these documents should of course be released to the defence. On his own initiative he asked the judge to go back on his ruling that the intelligence documents should not be allowed to be revealed, and after consultation with the Attorney-General, and having told him of his views, brought the whole prosecution to an end.
I have taken up time in referring to that case. It was only because there was an independent prosecutor, independent of the departments concerned and independent of the Government, and a defence barrister who was prepared to maintain the pressure on the prosecution, that there was not a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Anyone who has read the Scott Report will see that if the four lawyers in that case had been government employed lawyers, there would have been no possibility whatever of that company and that managing director being acquitted. Indeed in a case that preceded that one concerning much the same situation, the barristers were not sufficiently independent. They gave the advice that the defendant should plead guilty. Some form of plea bargaining was arrived at and it was only after the Scott Report that that case was returned to the Court of Appeal, the plea was set aside and a miscarriage of justice which had taken place was set right.
That is all I say in support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. A state prosecutor and a state defender are both made possible under this Bill, supervised by members of the executive, the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor. That surely raises a somewhat menacing matter of principle worthy of further consideration and worthy of consideration by the Committee.
Baroness Thornton: I have just witnessed the Committee taking its gloves off. I have witnessed what one might perhaps call a bit of noble mud wrestling. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and I inhabit different planets. It is simply not accurate to say that the legal profession is held in such high esteem. I wish that that were the case. It is true that members of the legal profession are held in higher esteem than politicians and journalists, but that probably is not saying much! The reasons for that are several. One reason is that not many ordinary people have access to the law. A second reason is that people believe that
1168
vested interests and restrictive practices are involved which do not make the law accessible to ordinary people.
I have listened to the debates on rights of audience that have taken place today and which took place late into the night on Tuesday. I confess that I am not convinced by the arguments that I have heard against change. I do not expect that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will have any problem in addressing the points that have been made. However, there are times in political life when people plainly do not agree with each other, and do not agree about the way forward. I believe this is one such occasion. When this happens, we need to consider democratic legitimacy. The Government have democratic legitimacy on their side on this occasion.
An irresistible thought keeps popping into my mind, and has done throughout this debate when Members of the Committee talk about maintaining standards and the protection of independence, both of which are issues of enormous importance and are the essence of the Bill. It occurs to me that one hears such remarks from some quarter whenever there is a proposal to make a procedure more democratic or to make it accountable or to ensure competition or, as in the case we are discussing, to remove restrictions and outmoded rules which no longer have a place in modern society.
In this case, we are largely talking about unfinished business. While I hated and deprecated many of the activities of the previous government and campaigned and worked against them, I also recognised that from time to time, particularly under the leadership of the then Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, they did go in for "busting" restrictive practices of various sorts. Despite the gallant efforts of the then noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, they failed to bust this particular restrictive practice in any significant manner. The Government now seek reforms that are long overdue.
It does not reflect well on the legal establishment, which sees itself, with justification, as a world-class industry. It is a question of confidence. I hope that the legal establishment will have the confidence to modernise and to shed the remnants of practices that date back many years and were designed to meet the problems of an earlier time. I urge my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to resist this amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: For many years I used to begin a speech with the words, "Members of the jury, it is my task to follow the powerful observations of my learned friend Mr. Hutchinson". Perhaps I may begin these few observations in that same way.
When I was first at the Bar, I went to a set of chambers where one of the senior members was a very junior Treasury counsel at the Old Bailey. He rapidly rose, and eventually became the senior Treasury counsel and acquired great reputation. He taught all those in his Chambers the rudiments of good prosecuting: the role of the prosecutor as a minister of justice pursuing the fair administration of justice.

1169
I went out into the wide world and, for many years, conducted a largely prosecution practice. I came across prosecuting solicitors who, in total defiance of the evidence, asked me to press for a conviction. I came across prosecuting solicitors who were appalled when I said that of course we must hand over to the defence information that the police had acquired that would be of assistance to the defence and would not be used by the prosecution. I came across prosecuting solicitors who regarded every conviction as a win and every acquittal as a defeat. I discovered that some offices had league tables on the walls containing the names of prosecuting solicitors and the barristers they had instructed, and whether they had scored convictions or had failed in certain cases. In recent times I have come across cases where prosecuting solicitors have told me that, on applying for a change of job to another prosecuting solicitor organisation, they have been asked many questions about their conviction ratio as though it were a qualification for promotion or a successful transfer.
I make those observations subject to two qualifications. First, I am speaking of a time many years ago—I shall not answer any questions as to exactly how many years ago. Secondly, I do not want to exaggerate the position. Of course one came across many prosecuting solicitors who behaved in a totally exemplary way, and who could be trusted beyond any question to exercise the rights of audience that are being given to them under this clause of the Bill in a way that would have been wholly admirable. On the other hand, I must concede that there were some members of the Bar who, when prosecuting, did not uphold the kind of standards that they should have done. Whether that was through ignorance or through a subconscious desire to please a person who would obviously be the source of much future work, I do not know. But at least those kinds of cases were dealt with by the type of machinery that I indicated in an earlier intervention.
Without seeking to exaggerate—and I do not for one moment categorise all prosecuting solicitors as incompetent or unfair—I was left in no doubt that if, as a whole, those prosecuting solicitors had been given rights of audience in our senior courts, the result would have been a lowering of the general standards of the prosecution advocate. I accept that that is not the end of the matter. There could be training facilities for such people and standards could be enforced. I shall return to that point shortly. That was the position as I found it, and as I believe it largely still is. I must stress that I want to be totally fair. The Crown Prosecution Service is now led by a man of the highest possible standards as Director of Public Prosecutions. I have no doubt that he will do his best to co-operate if the circumstances set out in the Bill become law.
It is my wish to be realistic. I accept that there is such a thing as parliamentary arithmetic. I accept that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has for some time—as has been made clear in a number of his observations—been deeply committed to the principles that are set out in Clause 31. Throughout this Committee
1170
stage, the noble and learned Lord has made a series of major, generous concessions unequalled by any Government Minister in conducting a Bill in this House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, having said that, I must add that I do not think any advocacy of mine will persuade the noble and learned Lord to make a similar major concession when he rises to reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Therefore, perhaps I may look for a moment to the future and to what will happen if this clause stands part of the Bill. The crucial matter is one of standards of advocacy among prosecuting solicitors who are being given rights of audience.
I come now to the second half of the observations that I was seduced into making earlier by the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I shall certainly not repeat them at this juncture. In all probability the question of maintaining high standards among those who are newly granted rights of audience is crucial if we are to move forward in the way in which the noble and learned Lord is anxious that we should.
I asked the noble and learned Lord a number of questions earlier about not only the code and the disciplinary body but the actual machinery on the ground that will detect breaches of the code and see that they are remedied. The noble and learned Lord said that he would rather not deal with that matter this afternoon, and I fully understand his reasons. I should be grateful for an indication from him that at some stage during the Bill's passage, possibly when we consider Clause 36 if that is thought appropriate, he may be able to give us a clear indication as to how he sees the future in this respect and how the safeguards are to be maintained in order that prosecutions can retain, if possible, the standard that they have always had in this country.
Lord Goodhart: The question of the rights of audience of CPS employees is an extremely difficult issue on which different views have been held strongly by individuals among my noble friends. The Committee has heard some of them expressed today—however, all on one side.
I must explain that the view taken by my party in this House is that those who have participated in the debate in this Committee will report back to our colleagues before the Report stage and the party will then decide how to recommend its members to vote. It follows that no decision has yet been taken on how we should vote on the issue and so I do not intend to express views of my own which would at this time be purely personal.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Hutchinson will not divide the Committee today on Clause 31 because it is preferable to defer the vote to the Report stage. If we vote today, then we have recommended our members to abstain, recognising that some may feel it impossible to do so.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I well recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, have deeply held convictions on the subject, as do others. However, it is also the fact that the arguments that we have heard now for almost one hour on the Question that Clause 31 do not stand part of the Bill have been fully canvassed in our debates on previous specific amendments.
I also have to say, as gently as I can, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, took 20 minutes to develop his arguments in Committee. That hand was fully dealt. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, dealt his even more fully at 22 minutes. I propose to be brief, in recognition that we have a long night ahead of us and there are many other amendments dealing with different but also important issues. I do not propose to enter upon battles of long ago, however much that might contribute on the part of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to a sense of déjà vu. I rather suspect that he would prefer to be spared that experience. Therefore, I shall not embark on those battles of long ago.
Clause 31 inserts a new Section 31 A into the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. It would have the effect of invalidating any contract rules or qualification rules of professional bodies which restrict employed lawyers from undertaking advocacy work where their counterparts in private practice are not similarly restricted. As barristers, employed barristers have theoretical rights of audience in all courts, but in practice they may not exercise many of those rights because they are prevented from doing so by the Bar's code of conduct which prevents employed barristers from appearing in the higher courts.
Similarly, the current rules of the Law Society in the terms approved in 1997 by my noble and learned predecessor and by the designated judges prevent an employed solicitor from appearing as the sole or senior advocate in substantive proceedings in the higher courts. They can appear only if led. That means that solicitor Crown prosecutors who have obtained the Law Society's higher courts criminal qualification are nevertheless unable to appear on their own in substantive trials in the Crown Court. In my view, that is to endorse a restrictive practice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, submitted to the Committee that the 1990 Act was not intended to allow employed lawyers to exercise rights of audience and not intended to allow CPS lawyers to prosecute. I imagine that it must have slipped his memory that in our proceedings on the 1990 Act the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, moved an amendment to prevent Crown prosecutors exercising rights of audience in the higher courts. That amendment was defeated.
In truth, the 1990 Act was an enabling Act. It created a procedure for extending rights of audience. But that procedure has failed sufficiently to extend these rights to employed lawyers. That is one of the important reasons the Bill has been brought forward.
1172
The Government do not believe that this discrimination against employed advocates is justified. The provision is designed to give full and exercisable rights of audience to employed advocates, including Crown prosecutors and other lawyers in the Crown service.
I have to say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, which he knows is sincerely felt, I regard the proposition as exorbitant that only the Bar can bring integrity to the prosecution process. I believe that that proposition would be rejected by the overwhelming majority of people in this country. I also have to say that it is insulting to employed lawyers as a class.
I ally myself with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, who said this on Second Reading (at cols. 1125 to 1126 of Hansard for 14th January):
"Six years' experience as one of the designated judges—I have perhaps longer experience in this matter than anyone except the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I am not far behind him—persuades me that the existing regime is unsatisfactory. I see no satisfactory alternative other than that proposed. While others disagree—and, I must make it plain, disagree very strongly, even passionately—I do not agree that Crown prosecutors, members of a service led by a very distinguished advocate answerable to an Attorney-General who has made clear his belief in the independence of the prosecuting function, would be likely to exhibit in the higher courts vices of which no complaint is made in the lower".
I add to those words of the noble and learned Lord that I cannot agree with the central argument that employed lawyers are incapable of exercising their duty ethically. The Crown Prosecution Service was set up precisely to provide a barrier between the investigators—that is to say, the police—and prosecutors. No one suggests that CPS barristers should not carry out cases in magistrates' courts, where they do, without any complaint against their ethical standards and where 97 per cent. of criminal cases in this country begin and end.
I emphasise that this clause does not mean that the authorised bodies should not be able to regulate those of their members who are employed lawyers. Of course they will continue to be subject to qualification regulations and rules of conduct, in the same way as their colleagues in private practice. But what is unacceptable is the current situation in which rules prevent qualified advocates from exercising rights of audience simply because they are employed.
I commend Clause 31 and believe that it should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ackner: After being chided for taking so long in moving my amendment, I shall take little time now in closing. I raise two points only. I was fully aware—and Hansard will show—that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, sought to move in Committee or at some other stage of the 1990 Act, there and then, that employed lawyers in the CPS should not have rights of audience. What my noble and learned friend the then Lord Chancellor did was to say: "No, this will be dealt with by the committee that I have set up and their advice and the reaction of the presiding judges and myself". In other words, he was not going to prejudice whatever the decision should be. In the part which I read out, he accepted that there was room for debate on either side.

1173
My final point is a reference to the Lord Chief Justice. It is sad that the Lord Chief Justice is out of step with his judges. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made no reference at any stage to the lengthy responses put in on behalf of the High Court judges, the Court of Appeal judges and the Inns Committee. They have all strongly said that, in their view, the Lord Chancellor should follow what was done in the 1989 proceedings.
This is a very serious and important point. I am sorry that the members of the Liberal Democrat Party have not yet made up their minds but in suggesting to me that I should not divide the House they have overlooked that I cannot come back on this amendment. As a result of any withdrawal, I cannot next time round invite the House again to take out this clause from the Bill. In those circumstances, as it is now or never, I feel it is only right to divide the House.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 31, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 88.

Division No. 1

CONTETS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Ampthill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bach, L.

Laming, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Brookman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Christopher, L.

Molloy, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

David, B.

Puttnam, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sewel, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gilbert, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hacking, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardie, L.

Thornton, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Uddin, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

1174

Winston, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lane, L.

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Leigh, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Liverpool, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Luke, L.

Annaly, L.

McConnell, L.

Attlee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Marlesford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bell, L.

Milverton, L.

Biffen, L.

Mountevans, L.

Blaker, L.

Morris, L.

Blatch, B.

Nelson, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Newall, L.

Brightman, L.

Norton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Byford, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cadman, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Rennell, L.

Carnock, L.

Renton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Cross, V.

Seccombe, B.

Denham, L.

Sempill, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Dudley, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Feldman, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sudeley, L.

Geddes, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gisborough, L.

Tebbit, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tenby, V.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Higgins, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooper, B.

Trenchard, V.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Westbury, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wharton, B.

Kingsland, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Kitchener, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Knutsford, V.

Wise, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Clause 31, as amended, disagreed to accordingly.
6.31 p.m.
Clause 32 [Employees of Legal Services Commission]:
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 241A:
Page 19, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("they") in line 39 and insert ("the body which fall within subsection (2) shall not have effect in relation to him.
(2) Rules of a body fall within this subsection if they are—

(a) rules of conduct prohibiting or limiting the exercise of the right on behalf of members of the public by members of the body who are employees, or

(b) rules of any other description prohibiting or limiting the provision of legal services to members of the public by such members of the body.

and").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 241A to Clause 32 is essentially a drafting amendment

1175
to correct an oversight in the current version of the clause. The clause provides that lawyers employed by the legal services commission may exercise their rights of audience or to conduct litigation on behalf of members of the public notwithstanding any professional rules that may otherwise prevent them from so doing. However, the clause fails to provide for advocates and litigators employed by the commission to be able to offer other legal services to the public. The short explanation is that lawyers do many things other than appear in court and conduct litigation; they give advice, attend interviews at police stations, draft documents and the like.
Lawyers employed by the legal services commission should be able to carry out these activities as necessary but at present they may be prevented by rules such as those in the Bar's code of conduct which permit employed barristers to offer legal services only to their employers and not to clients of their employers. The amendment will therefore ensure that such rules do not limit the provision of legal services by lawyers employed by the commission. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 243:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—

LEGAL EXECUTIVES' PRACTICE CERTIFICATES
(" .—(1) A person who (whether expressly or by implication) describes himself as a legal executive is guilty of an offence unless he is a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives who has in force a current practice certificate issued by that Institute.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: My new clause will ensure that a person can describe himself as a legal executive only if he is a fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives with a current practising certificate in force. It is important to ensure that consumers are not misled by self-descriptions of those who offer legal services. In recent years the term "legal executive" has come to bear the meaning of a fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives and to imply that the person concerned is subject to the qualification and regulation that that involves. It is appropriate, therefore, to ensure that the public is not misled by other, less well qualified individuals assuming the same title.
With this amendment is grouped Amendment No. 291, to which I shall briefly speak. Schedule 6 to the Bill amends the provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 in respect of rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. The amendment proposed here to Section 63 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, would extend to legal executives the professional privilege conferred on other authorised practitioners. It makes clear that communications made by or to legal executives, whether they are employed in solicitors' firms, departments or
1176
otherwise, are subject to the same rules of privilege as apply to communications made by or to other authorised practitioners. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: When the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, comes to make his observations on the response of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor perhaps he will indicate what the institute of Legal Executives does to ensure high standards among its members. I am sure that my ignorance in this matter is my fault. What disciplinary code if any does that body have? How vigilant and disciplined is it in exercising any such code that may exist? This is critical in terms of the criteria relating to membership that the noble Lord demands.
Viscount Bledisloe: Perhaps the noble Lord can also deal with the following point. I understand that this amendment would prevent a person from describing himself as a non-practising legal executive. A solicitor who does not have a practising certificate can say that he is a non-practising solicitor. Can one say that one is a non-practising legal executive?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Institute of Legal Executives is an excellent body that does a great deal of work in training and ensuring the highest standards of those who work in solicitors' firms. There should be no suggestion, even in a question, that there is anything less than proper in the way that that institute carries out its work. I support this amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry that the noble Lord implies that I am being unduly critical. I raise the question because I simply do not know the answer. Similar situations arose in relation to insurance brokers as a consequence of which the then government introduced the Insurance Brokers Registration Act, for which I was responsible. I genuinely want to know the situation. If an individual had been practising as a legal executive for a long period of time would he be required to undertake a course of whatever it might be in order to become a member of that body when that had not been imposed on him before? I believe that these factors should be weighed in the balance in deciding whether or not this is a good proposition.
Lord Kingsland: As I understand it, the structure of the institute and the way in which it manages itself, conducts examinations and investigates breaches of conduct are similar to the other two legal professions. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the way in which the system has worked over the past 20 years to say whether it has worked as well as the solicitors' profession or the Bar Council or otherwise. I am certainly prepared to provide the noble Lord with further information, but I cannot do that at the Dispatch Box now.
There is no doubt that a number of people who offer legal services and who describe themselves as legal executives have not taken the appropriate examinations

1177
and are not subject to the discipline of the institute. The amendment seeks to provide some quality assurance against that misrepresentation.
Lord Woolf: Perhaps I can assist noble Lords marginally on this subject. I must disclose that I am a vice-president of the body. Rights of audience were required as a result of a recommendation of ACLEC. It was considered and approved by the designated judges and followed as a consequence of that. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to bear in mind that it is unlikely that that procedure would have been followed unless those different bodies were satisfied on the kind of matter that he raises.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sure that I shall have a flow of correspondence from the body, having made those intemperate remarks or raised those questions.
Lord Hacking: I am a little puzzled by the amendment. In the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990—the Bill does not propose to alter the section—Section 70 says:
"If any person does any act in the purported exercise of a right of audience, or right to conduct litigation, in relation to any proceedings or contemplated proceedings when he is not entitled to exercise that right he shall be guilty of an offence".
There is already protection for the public in the statute; namely, that any persons who have a right either of audience or to conduct litigation may do so.
We have the authorised body and the functions of the authorised body of the Institute of Legal Executives. If, for example, the Institute of Legal Executives gives a right to its junior members—those who have not become fellows—to appear in front of a master of the High Court or the like, it seems that nobody would be misled and that that would be entirely in order. I wonder whether the noble Lord who has tabled the amendment would address that point.
Lord Kingsland: I am not sure that I follow. Section 70 of which Act?
Lord Hacking: The Courts and Legal Services Act. That Act already makes it an offence to exercise a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation when you do not have that right.
Lord Kingsland: As I understand it, my amendment concerns misrepresentation of the title, and not an exercise of the right of audience. It is a misrepresentation of the title "legal executive".
Lord Hacking: What effect does that have?
Lord Kingsland: With great respect, I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord's question. If someone misrepresents himself as a legal executive, properly examined and accredited by the institute, he will be committing a criminal offence if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepts the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of Amendment No. 243 is to protect the title of "legal executive". The effect will be that it is an offence for anyone who is not a fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) to describe himself, whether expressly or by implication, as a legal executive.
My response is that the offence which the amendment would create is unnecessary. If anyone uses the title of legal executive to imply that they have a right of audience as a fellow of ILEX or, in the future—and as proposed by the Bill—a right to conduct litigation as a fellow of ILEX, then that person could be found guilty of an offence under Section 70 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Section 70(1) provides that:
"If any person does any act in the purported exercise of a right of audience, or right to conduct litigation, in relation to any proceedings or contemplated proceedings when he is not entitled to exercise that right he shall be guilty of an offence."
It is an offence publishable on summary conviction by up to six months' imprisonment, and on indictment by up to two years' imprisonment.
Fellows of ILEX may also administer the oath, the institute having been prescribed for that purpose under Section 113 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. It is an offence at common law to administer the oath without authority.
I agree with noble Lords to this extent. I, too, was very pleased when the Institute of Legal Executives finally became an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights of audience to its suitably qualified fellows, on 23rd April 1998. When the designated judges and I gave our approval to the application in October 1997, I wrote to the then president of the institute congratulating ILEX on being the first new body to be authorised under the 1990 Act to grant rights of audience. I said that:
"Fellows of the institute already play an important role in the legal process, and the success of this application will ensure an even greater contribution in the future."
But does it follow from that respect, that the title of legal executive should be protected in this way?
This amendment would make it a criminal offence for anyone to describe himself as a legal executive who is not a fellow of ILEX with a current practising certificate. That, I think, is going too far. The Institute of Legal Executives was formed in 1963 as the successor body to the Institute of Solicitors' Managing Clerks' Association. It has various classes of membership, of which fellowship is the most experienced, but out of a total of 23,000 members, only about 6,000 are fellows. The other 17,000 or so are members of the institute, and may now style themselves, quite properly, and regard themselves as "legal executives". This amendment would force them to change their title, or to be liable to a criminal charge. It is generally understood that the term "legal executive" is of sufficiently broad usage, perfectly properly, to cover those, particularly in solicitor's offices, who work in a legal capacity, but who do not derive their authority or status from statute, like solicitors, or from the common law, like barristers. So long as no one is being misled, I do no not believe that there is a problem.

1179
I consider that there is already sufficient protection for the restricted activities of fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives. I do not believe that an additional criminal offence of the kind proposed is necessary.
The purpose of the second amendment is to extend legal professional privilege to legal services provided by fellows of ILEX. However, it is questionable that it will have that effect. The Institute of Legal Executives is already an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights of audience to its suitably qualified fellows. Clause 34 provides that the institute should be authorised for the purposes of granting rights to conduct litigation to suitably qualified fellows, that is to say, once appropriate rules have been approved.
Legal professional privilege in respect of advocacy and litigation services provided by an authorised advocate or authorised litigator is already ensured by Section 63 of the 1990 Act. Section 63 applies to any communication to or by a person who is not a barrister or solicitor at any time when that person is for these purposes,
"providing advocacy or litigation services as an authorised advocate or authorised litigator".
Subsection (2) states:
"Any such communication shall in any legal proceedings be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if the person in question had at all material times been acting as his client's solicitor".
So any communication with a legal executive in his capacity as an authorised advocate or authorised litigator would be privileged from disclosure "in like manner" as if he were a solicitor. The nature of the solicitor's or a barrister's legal professional privilege is not defined in statute; it derives from common law.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has sought to add this new provision to Schedule 6 to the Bill. But that schedule deals only with rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. As I have just explained, these are already covered by Section 63 of the 1990 Act. In any event, therefore, it appears to me that the amendment would not fit into Schedule 6.
I remain unclear, as I think do other noble Lords, what the amendment would mean and what it is intended to cover. If it is intended to cover anything other than advocacy and litigation, it must be the giving of legal advice. But I am satisfied that a court would say that privilege applied exactly as it would with a solicitor, so the amendment is almost certainly unnecessary. Apart from anything else it would seem odd indeed to give statutory protection to the legal professional privilege of legal executives alone while that of barristers and solicitors, and I believe of legal executives too, is protected at common law.
For those reasons I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for a full reply upon which I shall reflect. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Authorised bodies: designation and regulations and rules]:
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Lloyd of Berwick moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 63, line 10, at end insert—
("(2) Every person exercising functions in connection with that Schedule shall act compatibly with the principle that a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession should be preserved."").
The noble and learned Lord said: I can be brief in moving the amendment because most of the ground was covered as long ago as the first day of Committee stage in respect of Amendment No. 1. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, and has said on many occasions during Committee, that he was in favour of a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will prove completely uncontroversial.
On the previous occasion, the noble and learned Lord pointed out that while the amendment was an admirable statement of an admirable principle, it was not particularly relevant in the context of Part I of the Bill. On reflection, I respectfully agree with his view on that.
It is all the more important that it should be included in Part III of the Bill, especially in relation to Schedule 5 where it could be highly relevant in relation to, for example, the powers to be exercised in giving advice to the consultative panel, to paragraph 2 of the amended Schedule 4, and in many other places. That is why the amendment covers every person exercising functions in connection with the amended Schedule 4 and not just the Lord Chancellor.
The only objection to the amendment may be that it is so obvious that it does not need stating. However, as the Committee will remember, that was not the view of the Lord Chief Justice on Second Reading. History is full of examples, as we all know, of matters which seem obvious today but which somehow seem to be overlooked, forgotten or eroded by tomorrow. In the view of the Lord Chief Justice, with which I respectfully agree, certain fundamental principles should be stated on the face of the Bill; and this is one of them. Indeed, the substance of the amendment is taken from the very language which the Lord Chief Justice used at Second Reading. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for moving the amendment. As I have often said, I believe—and believe passionately—in a strong, independent and self-regulating legal profession. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, in our Second Reading debate suggested that an amendment such as this, stating a general principle, would prove reassuring to some noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, moved a similar amendment to Part I of the Bill earlier in our proceedings in Committee.
I said then that I would consider whether a suitable amendment could be made to Clause 36 of the Bill, to emphasise the obligation which binds all advocates and litigators to act with proper independence. I continue to hope to be able to move such an amendment on Report.

1181
I am more hesitant about this particular amendment. It could not, for example, prevent a Lord Chancellor from ever exercising the power to call in and alter professional rules, subject to parliamentary approval, since that is an explicit statutory power conferred by the Bill. Any Lord Chancellor's exercise of that power would be reviewable by the courts. Therefore I do not see how the amendment would help a judge to decide such a case.
I should also point out that in exercising any functions under the provisions of Schedule 5 to the Bill or, more exactly, under the new Schedule 4 which it will insert into the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, all those concerned are already subject to the statutory objective and the general principle set out in Section 17 of the 1990 Act which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, well recalls. The statutory objective is,
"the development of legal services in England and Wales (and in particular the development of advocacy, litigation, conveyancing and probate services) by making provision for new or better ways of providing such services and a wider choice of persons providing them, while maintaining the proper and efficient administration of justice".
The general principle is that the question of whether a person should be granted a right of audience, or be granted a right to conduct litigation, should be determined only by reference to four factors. Those are set out in Section 17(3) of the 1990 Act. They are whether he is qualified appropriately for the court or proceedings concerned; whether he belongs to a professional or other body with effective rules of conduct; whether, in the case of advocacy, those rules require an advocate not to withhold his services on the grounds that the nature of the case is objectionable, or that the conduct, opinions or beliefs of the prospective client are unacceptable, or because of the source of any financial support which may properly be given to the client; and, finally, whether the rules of conduct concerned are appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice.
On revisiting these provisions, they appear to me to be both well founded and comprehensive. I am committed to the maintenance of high standards that we have come to expect from our legal profession and the maintenance of the independence of the legal profession from improper pressures from whatever quarter, including, most particularly, the Executive. The powers given to the Lord Chancellor by the Bill are strictly circumscribed. I have made it absolutely plain that the more controversial of them are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will be satisfied by those assurances and by the changes I propose to make on Report to Clause 36 and on that basis that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I would have preferred to have spoken before the noble and learned
1182
Lord the Lord Chancellor, but he bounced to his feet with that joie de vivre for which he is so noted and I am not. Therefore, I rise to speak now.

I read in The Times on Monday that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had defused a potential conflict with senior judges over the powers which the Bill would confer upon him. The basis of that happy forecast was a leak that he would give a fair wind in principle to an earlier amendment which reflects the wording of this amendment. He has taken it back to redraft and one cannot know what the tenor will be until we see it. However, I wish briefly to outline the basis for my continuing anxieties, whatever may be in the redraft.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that any change in the general terms of the clause suggested by the amendment would have no effect whatever on the powers to force changes in the rules of the profession which are expressly dealt with elsewhere. However, I wish to take the Committee back to first principles. Our unwritten constitution provides for three branches of government: the legislative branch, which consists of the two Houses of Parliament; the executive branch, which consists of the Government of the day; and the judicial branch, which consists not only of the judges but also the members of the legal profession.
I say that because in the context of the administration of justice the solicitors expressly, and barristers and legal executives impliedly, are officers of the court who are as much involved in the administration of justice as are the judges themselves. Any changes in the qualifications of those three professions, or in the rules of professional conduct, have the potential for affecting that status as officers of the court. It may be improved; but its effectiveness may also be reduced.
The authority of the legislative branch is supreme. There is no problem about that. However, it is generally accepted that it is of cardinal constitutional importance that the powers of the three branches should be kept separate and distinct. That creates a problem for the Lord Chancellor who is not only a very senior member of the executive branch but is the titular head of the judicial branch.
At a press conference on 25th June, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appeared to deny that the arrangements contained in Schedule 5 created any problem. He said that as, traditionally, questions as to the rights of audience have been for the judiciary, he saw nothing wrong in he himself, acting as head of the judiciary, deciding in consultation with the designated judges. Of course, the operative word is "consultation", which has a chameleon-like character, as we all know. Any transfer of power from the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges, that power being exercised jointly by the five of them, to the Lord Chancellor alone is, in my view, a major constitutional change.
In that context, we must never forget that some future holders of the office may bear little resemblance in their attitudes and actions to the present holder or his recent predecessors. It must be remembered that there are no formal qualifications for appointment to the office of Lord Chancellor. The appointee need have no judicial experience. He does not have to be even eligible for

1183
judicial appointment. He need have no legal knowledge whatever. Indeed, as regards formal qualifications, he could be the hereditary plumber of whom we heard a lot in a different context earlier in the Session.
What matters above all is that he does not have the independence of the rest of the judiciary, which is based upon political impartiality and security of tenure. By contrast, he is necessarily political, politically powerful, and holds office only for so long as he enjoys the Prime Minister's confidence. Let me stress again that I am not talking about the present Lord Chancellor. But any constitutional change must look to the future and to the extent to which there could be abuses of power.
No doubt it will be said that to some extent the Lord Chancellor's freedom of action will be restrained by the purpose clause in whatever form it may emerge. But, as I have said, I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that in this particular context of professional conduct and qualifications it would not operate. He says that there will be control by Parliament and by the courts. I agree that those are the only two candidates.
However, in the context of secondary legislation, which is what would be involved as regards Parliament, the powers of this House are somewhat limited. We must look to the future. We do not know what the powers of this House will be in, say, five years' time and in relation to such legislation. And the judiciary themselves would have considerable problems if a complaint were made to them about an abuse of power in this context by the Lord Chancellor. I say that because I assume that the challenge would come, possibly from the Bar Council or the Law Society, in the form of an application for judicial review. No doubt there would be a good deal of political steam in both directions and it would be impossible to get the great British public, or even the non-legal chattering classes, to understand that judicial review in this context was concerned solely with vires and not with the merits of the proposed change.
There would be an even further difficulty from the point of view of the courts—of course, they would try to get over it—in that it would be said, whether or not on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, by those who wished to uphold the Lord Chancellor's decision that the judges had already advised against it, as I assume would have been the case, and that therefore they were being judges in their own cause.
I accept that Schedule 4 in its procedural detail is clumsy, slow and far too wide-ranging. When I was Master of the Rolls I suggested, but not in detail, that there ought to be a fast-track procedure so that the more detailed changes to rules and so forth which did not involve public interest went straight through. I agree that there needs to be an extensive reforming, but major changes in the professional qualifications and rules of conduct should require not only the compliance of the Lord Chancellor but that of at least two of the designated judges. If the Lord Chancellor and two of the four designated judges agree, there is a majority. While I might disagree with the decision, I would accept it with content. But unless we keep that safeguard—we do
1184
not keep it because at the moment it requires unanimity, which I think probably is a mistake—and the situation in which the Lord Chancellor cannot make such changes without the concurrence of at least two of the designated judges, I believe that we are making a very dangerous change in the constitutional arrangements.
Lord Woolf: I am afraid it seems to be a failing not only of the Master of the Rolls who is still in office but also of those who have in the past been distinguished holders of the office that they do not jump to their feet as quickly as they should. In my case, I did not do so because having heard the wise words of my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick, I thought that there could be only one outcome, having regard to the history of this Committee when dealing with earlier provisions. I urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to reconsider his position in relation to the proposed amendment.
I recognise its limitations as pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington as to what it would achieve. However, I suggest that it would be an important signpost. Today, when construing legislation, such signposts can be extremely effective, particularly in relation to applications for judicial review.
As in the case of my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, I too accept, and hope, that there will probably never be a time when reliance will have to be placed on that clause. However, fundamental changes of a significant nature are involved. I do not regard the present situation, having experienced it for a limited time, as satisfactory. There must he change. But I suggest, as did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, that a signpost as proposed by this amendment would be of value.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his response although I confess that I had hoped that he might, even at this stage, have been able to accept the broad principle which lies behind the amendment. It simply adds to, and does not provide a substitute for, the objectives already set out in Section 17 of the 1990 Act.
At present, the noble and learned Lord regards those objectives as comprehensive. I am not sure that I agree with him about that. Perhaps, between now and Report stage, he may reconsider that point. In any event, I look forward to receiving his fresh proposals. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 63, line 19, leave out from ("writing") to first ("to") in line 20 and insert—
("(a) for him").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments seeks to replace the proposed powers of the Lord Chancellor to approve professional bodies for the grant of rights of audience and the amendments to professional bodies' rules with a requirement that the approval be granted

1185
by the Lord Chancellor and the four designated judges. However, rather than unanimity, it is proposed that a simple majority should be required for the approval of the designation and the amendments. The existing provisions provide only an advisory role for the judges.
This set of amendments deals only with amendments to Part I, II, and IV of the schedule. That is because a later amendment seeks to have Part III of the schedule removed altogether from the Bill. If the subsequent amendment is unsuccessful, then it would be appropriate for similar amendments to be made to Part III.
The codes of both professional bodies stress that both barristers and solicitors owe their primary duty to the court and impose duties of honesty and openness on the court. The Bar's code is a synthesis of judicial decisions and rulings of the profession on appropriate conduct. The code for solicitors mirrors it.
It must be appropriate for the most senior judges to have more than a mere advisory role in relation to the future form of those codes. When the proposals which led to the existing Schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act were being debated by this House, as I know the Committee is aware, great concern was expressed about the implications of a Cabinet Minister having the final decision on the rules of an independent profession.
The resulting compromise was probably over-complex and, indeed, resulted in long delays in approving rule changes. I suppose that some of those delays were inevitable in the context of very complex applications. Others were perhaps less explicable. It is probably true to say that none of the participants in the procedure has always acted as speedily as possible. So the proposals to speed up the procedure are very welcome.
However, the removal of any power from the judges is most unwelcome. It means that the judges will lose any final influence over the rules governing the conduct of advocates before them. We shall doubtless be told that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consult the judges in every case and will take their advice very seriously. But the fact remains that their advice is not binding.
Some of the difficulties with the existing system lie in the need to secure unanimity among the designated judges. That may well have proved to be too restrictive. But that is not a reason to write out the judges altogether. We believe that a majority decision is an appropriate approach.
In their Second Reading speeches, the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls indicated that they did not share these concerns and were content for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to take those powers. They were also candid enough to indicate that their views were not shared by the overwhelming majority of their colleagues.
In my submission, the proposals fly in the face of the doctrine of the separation of powers which is a fundamental basis of our constitution. Parliament is the legislature; and the administration of justice is for the
1186
judges. The two should be kept quite separate. A statutory scheme in the 1990 Act ensured that the judges remained in control both of the exercise of rights of audience and of rights to conduct litigation in the courts.
The Government's proposals in the consultation paper, and in this Bill, mark a total change in the position. The judges would no longer be in a position to decide who could and in what circumstances exercise rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. That power would be given solely to the Executive in the person of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—as a Minister and not as a judge. The judges would be reduced to the role of former consultees whose advice could be ignored as the Executive might choose.
That is not acceptable on constitutional grounds. If the United Kingdom had a written constitution, the separation of powers would be enshrined in it, as it is in the constitution of the United States of America. To an American lawyer, it would be a matter of astonishment that the Executive might seek to arrogate to itself the sole power to decide who could speak in the courts or who could conduct litigation in them.
Therefore, we share the view of the majority of judges that it is dangerous for power, fettered only by a duty to consult and the very loose provisions applying to judicial review, to be placed in the hands of one government Minister, however distinguished, eminent and honourable the present holder of that office may be. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I rise to support the amendment. Much of what I intended to say has already been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington in relation to the previous amendment. The key amendment in this group is Amendment No. 250. The question which that amendment raises is: who is to make the final decision? Is it to be the Lord Chancellor acting alone, possibly in the teeth of the advice which he has received from the consultative panel and the distinguished judges or is it to be a majority of the designated judges, including, for this purpose, the Lord Chancellor himself?
I have understood all along the need to replace ACLEC, which has been explained so patiently and so clearly by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I can see also that the process of reform should not be able to be held up by a single designated judge who may happen to disagree with some proposal for reform. That argument surely could not apply where the majority of the designated judges disagree with the proposal, still less where all the designated judges disagree with the proposal. At the moment—and I do not expect to be persuaded by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this but I may be—I can see no justification whatever for excluding the designated judges altogether from the decision and confining them to the role of being consulted or being entitled to be consulted.
One needs perhaps to remind oneself, although we all know, who these designated judges are. They are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President

1187
of the Family Division and the Vice Chancellor. These are the judges who are in daily touch with the actual administration of justice in the courts. Of course the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor consults widely, and indeed the history of this Bill shows just how widely he has consulted, but he does not have the same day-to-day experience of sitting and listening to cases in court. It is for that reason that these four designated judges should, in my opinion, be part of the actual decision and not simply confined to their role as persons to be consulted.
No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say, as indeed he has said and would say, that he would be very slow to disagree with the unanimous view of the designated judges. But that does not really meet the point of principle that the decision should not be his alone. He may also say that his decision could be reviewed by way of judicial review but, as he knows better than anyone, judicial review is not a suitable instrument for arriving at this sort of decision. It is a blunt instrument not suitable for the fine tuning of decisions in this field.
"Fine tuning" is a phrase which is not my own. It is a phrase which is used in the response of the council of the Inns of Court to the Lord Chancellor's consultative paper. In paragraph 6 it says:
"We understand why it may be considered wrong that a single designated judge, however eminent, should have a power to veto changes to the grant of exercise of rights of audience approved by the Lord Chancellor and the other three designated judges, but we do not understand why it should be necessary to go to the opposite extreme".
That is what we are doing, going to the opposite extreme and relegating the judges to the role of consultees only. The council of the Inns of Court then referred to an opinion of Mr. Sydney Kentridge QC. Mr. Kentridge, in an opinion which again was forwarded to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, says that the effect of these proposals is to bring about what he calls a constitutional revolution. Mr. Kentridge is not a man who wastes words. He chooses his words very carefully indeed.
Perhaps, for the benefit of the Committee, I may quote one sentence from Mr. Kentridge's opinion. He says,
"The persuasiveness of those reasons"—
that is to say, the reasons for extending rights of audience, which for my part I have no difficulty with—
"provides no ground for reducing the rights and powers of the judicial arm of the constitution and transferring them to the executive".
I do not overlook the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is in one sense the head of the judiciary, but in that role he has never previously had the powers which he now seeks to obtain, and the proposed new powers will be exercised in his ministerial capacity.
I am aware that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, in the Second Reading debate, did not see any great difficulty in reducing the role of the designated judges to that of consultees, to use that not very attractive word, but he did accept that in that respect he was not speaking for the majority of judges,
1188
many of whom he said—and the passage has already been quoted by the noble and learned Lord—felt strongly, even passionately, that this is a power which ought not to be given to the Lord Chancellor. I am no longer a judge, but if I were asked whether I felt passionately about this I would probably say no, not passionately; but I do feel very strongly about it.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I shall not repeat what I said earlier. I am passionately in favour of the amendment. I rise only because I thought that something that my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick said might mislead non-lawyers in the Chamber. He said that judicial review is not a suitable vehicle for fine-tuning ministerial decisions. That is not the distinction. The real distinction is that it is not a vehicle for considering the merits of decisions, and unless one can show on Wednesbury grounds, which is most unlikely, that the proposal of the successor Lord Chancellor—let me stress that—was so lunatic that it bordered on the irrational and therefore was ultra vires it is difficult to see what power the courts would have.
Lord Goodhart: I rise also to support this amendment, to which I have put my name. As has been pointed out, Parts I, II and IV of the new Schedule 4 cover the same ground as Parts I, II and III of the old schedule. Part I relates to the designation of authorised bodies, Part II to the approval of rule changes made by authorised bodies, and Part IV to the power to revoke designation of authorised bodies. The new Part III contains an entirely new power for the Lord Chancellor to impose rule changes on various bodies. That deserves an entirely separate debate because it raises the question whether that part should exist at all. That issue is raised by a separate and subsequent amendment which is not part of this group.
The most significant difference between the new schedule and the old schedule in relation to the three parts which appear in both of them is, as has been pointed out, that the veto of the designated judges is entirely removed even if they are unanimously opposed to the proposal of the Lord Chancellor. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to restore a modified judicial veto in Part I of Schedule 3. The subsequent parts are dealt with in subsequent groups of amendments. The 1990 Act was undoubtedly too rigid in allowing only one of the four designated judges to veto an application for designation as an authorised body. That is certainly now widely recognised. The amendments in this group modify that by requiring the Lord Chancellor to get only two judges on his side, not all four of them, in order to allow the proposal to go through. Why is a judicial veto needed at all? There are, after all, two other safeguards: first, judicial review; and, secondly, the need for an Order in Council by affirmative procedure in relation to Parts I and IV.
Judicial review, I believe, is not an adequate safeguard, for the reasons just pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. It requires judges to find that the Lord Chancellor has been acting irrationally; what is known in the trade as Wednesbury unreasonableness. As the noble and learned

1189
Lord pointed out, that is a very high border to surmount. Secondly, the affirmative procedure for Orders in Council is itself of limited value. A Government with a large majority in the other place can carry a vote there and in your Lordships' Chamber. The convention of not rejecting secondary legislation makes it difficult to resist any such Order in Council. It is possible that if a future Lord Chancellor introduced an order over the objection of all four of the designated judges, your Lordships' House might think that the constitutional significance of the Order in Council was sufficient to enable the House to override the convention. But that is unlikely and at best speculative.
There are major constitutional reasons why the modified judicial veto should be retained. The independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers is of the highest constitutional importance and is becoming rapidly more so because of the powers of the judiciary to decide devolution issues and issues that come under the Human Rights Act. Historically, of course, judges have always had control over rights of audience. Solicitors have been given rights of audience in the lower courts by various statutes. Rights of audience are now codified in the 1990 Act. Control over who has rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience is, to a considerable extent, control over the legal process itself.
The doctrine of the separation of powers as recognised in England and Wales does not lead to immunity from parliamentary legislation; but if the Lord Chancellor proposes to extend rights of audience and to litigate to members of new authorised bodies—that is the power under Part I—over the objection of three out of the four most senior judges, then only primary legislation will be the proper way to do that.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With the greatest respect to the extraordinarily distinguished legal personalities who have spoken in this debate—I am certainly not one of them; I was a humble high street solicitor—too much is being made of this.
It is argued by my noble and learned friend that present procedures are too complex, too difficult and lead to unnecessary delay. I am persuaded that those points have not been taken into account sufficiently or at all by those who have argued in favour of this amendment. We have to be practical about this. It is not as though my noble and learned friend will go into the arena refusing to consult—it does not matter whether it is he or his successors—and acting in a totally arbitrary way. What has been the case in the past is that these procedures have been extremely arcane and we ought to avoid that situation in the future.
It was incumbent on those who sought to support the amendment to give some credit to the arguments set out in the Notes on Clauses, which I hope they read; I hope they are worthy of some mention. But unless I misheard the situation in the enthralling atmosphere affecting this debate, which imposes certain rest periods for some of us, I did not hear the arguments being adduced address those matters at all.
1190
The proposal made by my noble and learned friend is worthy of more profound consideration. Of course I shall listen carefully to what he has to say in response to this debate. I do not know whether or not he supports me; I suspect he might. At all events, while I listen with great care to legal luminaries who have spoken so far, I am not persuaded to support the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord sits down, since he raised the issue of increased complexity and delay, can he say why there should be any more complexity and delay in requiring the designated judges to consent to the proposal when under the new schedule the Lord Chancellor has to seek their advice?
Lord Clinton-Davis: While I understand that point, it does not fully address what I was saying. I shall listen to my noble and learned friend whom I am sure will offer some wise words on this issue.
Lord Hacking: There is another reason why my noble and learned friend should resist this amendment. He is answerable to Parliament. Whether it is primary or secondary legislation, he is still answerable to Parliament. It is for Parliament to decide such basic issues as the freedom to have rights of audience and whether or not a monopoly is exercised by certain bodies. This is a parliamentary matter; it is not simply a judicial matter.
The Lord Chancellor: These amendments would not restore the individual vetoes of each judge but would require the decisions to be taken jointly by them and the Lord Chancellor and, in the event of a difference of opinion, by a majority. That would mean that the Lord Chancellor could act only if at least two of the four judges agreed with him.
I want to start with a proposition of principle; that is, the principle that rights of audience in the Queen's courts are not ultimately to be decided upon by the designated judges or even by a majority of them, but by Parliament. The notion that it is appropriate for the judiciary, by any means, to be empowered to grant work licences to advocates is outmoded and out of place in a modern Britain. In our democracy the framework of rights of audience in Her Majesty's courts should be settled by Parliament, not the judges.
Much has been made of the proposition that on judicial review of the decision of a Lord Chancellor in this regard, the court would not substitute its view of the merits for that of the Lord Chancellor. That is correct of course unless the court was of the view, having regard to the objectives of the Bill, that the decision of the Lord Chancellor was irrational. But the merits of rights of audience issues are for Parliament where the real issue is whether what are prima facie restrictive practices are nonetheless justifiable in the public interest. What is justifiable in the public interest is for decision by Parliament, not by the judges.
Under the Bill's proposals the designated judges will retain a powerful role in advising me on the exercise of the powers in the new Schedule 4 to the 1990 Act. Judging by my experience thus far, it is in the highest degree unlikely that we will disagree about applications under the

1191
Act and it is by far the most probable that we would agree about all. But ultimately I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—the most senior of the designated judges, whether or not he be in a minority so far of the judges as a whole—when he said at Second Reading,
"the final power of decision in these matters should rest with the Lord Chancellor. In the last analysis, it is he alone who is answerable to Parliament and to the public for the exercise of these powers".—[Official Report, 14/12/98; col. 1126.]

That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but I have made it absolutely plain that under this Bill I would make any exercise of these powers by the Lord Chancellor subject to the approval of Parliament.
I am fortified in that view by the knowledge that my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, who is in his place—the second most senior of the designated judges—also agrees with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. He made this quite clear at Second Reading when he said:
"it is part of the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor in our constitutional framework and he must take that responsibility".— [Official Report, 14/12/98; cols. 1153–1154.]
In my first Mansion House speech on 23rd July 1997, I said that I wanted to address, first,
"the separation of powers upon which our constitution rests; and what exactly that in my view entails for the relationship between Government and the judiciary".
I continued:
"It was widely perceived by the public that, under the last Government, relations between the higher judiciary and the Government had sunk to an all time low.
The public know, or sense, what the separation of powers is about. They are unhappy if the Government are attacking the judiciary and if the judiciary seem to be hitting back in return. They then feel that all is not well with the state of the nation. I am clear that the Lord Chancellor is at a critical cusp in the separation of powers. I personally regard it as of the first importance that the judges' views whether proposed changes by the Government to the law will work, or any views the judiciary may have of damage they, the judiciary, apprehend to the system from legislative proposals that the Government are minded to bring forward, should be able to be made known effectively to government at a stage when policy is still being formulated and not settled.
It is essential that Government be able to speak to the judiciary and the judiciary to Government. I regard the Lord Chancellor as the primary medium for that interchange".
I believe that that would be the credo of any Lord Chancellor.
Those of your Lordships who are concerned that a Lord Chancellor might wield his powers in an attempt to damage the freedom and independence of the legal profession should bear in mind that he would be able to exercise his power to alter the rules of an authorised body, or to revoke the designation of an authorised body, only with the express sanction of both Houses of Parliament. Ultimately, it is Parliament that is the guardian of our liberties—and without Parliament, we are all lost.
Parliament will be well placed to fulfil this role in relation to Part I of the schedule, as no Order in Council may be made in this regard unless approved by both Houses. I trust, therefore, that noble Lords who have proposed the amendment will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he willing to undertake that in a case
1192
where, however unlikely, he finds himself rejecting the advice of the designated judges, he would either publish the effect or substance of that advice or at least let the world know that that is what he is doing?
The Lord Chancellor: I would certainly always ensure—indeed, there is provision in the Bill in that regard—that the advice which I did not accept was published and that my reasons for not accepting that advice were published.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I believe that the Lord Chancellor may be mistaken when he says that there is provision for the judges' advice to be published. We corresponded on this matter a few weeks ago. When I asked why there was no power for the judges to publish their advice, the answer that I received from the Lord Chancellor, which I entirely accepted, was that they had inherent power to publish their advice and, although he did not put it quite in these terms, if they disagreed sufficiently, no power on earth would stop them publishing.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I heard with great interest what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. However, he emphasised the right of Parliament to alter the rules of rights of audience; there is no question about that. That is something that Parliament has done many times, starting, I think, in the last century and most recently in 1990. The question surely is: how should that power be exercised? Is it adequate that that power can be exercised by secondary legislation? I am suggesting no challenge whatever to the right of Parliament to alter by primary legislation the rules of rights of audience. That is the question that has to be decided here.
The Lord Chancellor: I have made it perfectly plain that I regard the affirmative resolution procedure as adequate.
Lord Kingsland: I disagree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the basis upon which he has promoted this part of the Bill. Democracy is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to guarantee freedom in our country. It is not just Parliament approving laws; it is judges interpreting the exercise of the laws and, where necessary, constraining the Executive in implementing the laws—equally an essential component of freedom. It is the operation of those two factors, freely side by side, which makes for a free society. After all, the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament is a doctrine of the courts.
I shall reflect on what the noble and learned Lord has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Tax Harmonisation
7.46 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support current proposals for tax harmonisation in the European Union.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken the trouble to put down their names to speak to this Unstarred Question. I say that now because I understand that I shall not have the opportunity to thank them later. I am grateful to them for being here and I am sorry that they will have only three minutes in which to speak, according to the instructions which I have been given. Whatever one's view on tax harmonisation, that is a shame. After all, it is an interesting subject despite the unpromising number of COM(97)564 FINAL.
The hare that started running in this case was more interestingly entitled A package to tackle harmful tax competition in the European Union. That in itself is an interesting concept. "Harmful tax competition"; harmful to whom? Who defines what is "harmful"? As a starting point, perhaps the Government would like to define what they see as harmful tax competition. What was that "package" and what are the consequences?
The first element was a code of conduct for business taxation. The second part comprised measures to eliminate withholding taxes and interest and royalty payments between companies. The third part was to make progress in the area of taxation of capital from income.
The code of conduct to which I referred requests member states to adopt certain principles; for example, not to engage in harmful tax competition. It allows member states to discuss the tax levels of other member states and to evaluate whether they are harmful. It also covers business tax measures which affect, or could affect, the location of business activity in the Community. Member states can still be asked to amend taxes,
"with a view to eliminating harmful measures".
Incidentally, the code also brackets together in Section M tax evasion and tax avoidance. It states:
"The Council stresses its commitment to full co-operation in the fight against tax evasion and avoidance".
Those are still two very separate matters in this country, but they seem to be equally treated as criminal in the code. The Government's Explanatory Memorandum states:
"as the Code of Conduct would not be legally binding, it would have no direct impact on UK law. However the Government would only agree to the Code of Conduct if it intended to honour it".
1194
To me, the code looks like a device for side-stepping the various EU treaties which require unanimity in respect of tax harmonisation. By signing up to it, the Government have at the very least limited their room for manoeuvre. After all, once the principle is conceded and other countries may have some kind of say in our tax matters, where do you stop in practice?
Further on in the memorandum the Government go on to say how,
"pleased it is that the Code of Conduct recognises the positive effects of fair tax competition. This means that the U.K. rates of Corporation tax could not be questioned under the Code".
How wonderfully optimistic that sounded even in late 1997 and how naïve it sounds now in the light of the events of the past couple of months when European Finance Ministers have repeated and underlined their insistence that EU tax harmonisation, including corporate taxes, would be high on their list of policy priorities. This stance was supported by the German Chancellor and echoed as French policy by M. Strauss-Kahn. the French Finance Minister.
Where does all this leave the Government and, more importantly, Britain's interests? The Government's first reaction was to pretend that tax harmonisation was not on the menu at all; then, when their cover was blown on that, to say that Mr. Lafontaine's opinion on tax harmonisation did not represent official German policy. When they were smoked out of that position by the German and French Governments confirming that tax harmonisation was indeed their official government policy, the Prime Minister went on to pretend that tax harmonisation plans were supported by only a minority of member states. But that is not the case. It is clear that the Commission paper to which I referred earlier reflected majority opinion; it would not otherwise have been put forward.
Of course, the Economic Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament has several times called for harmonisation of EU business taxes, with the leader of the Parliament, Jean-Claude Juncker, saying in 1997 that he expected this to take place within two years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was thus forced back into a previously unprepared position—the threat to use the veto—and this from a government who still say they are winning the argument in Europe. That will be news to the London art market. But, sadly, even that position was booby trapped. The French and German Governments confirmed their belief that the principle of unanimity should be abolished with Finland helpfully chipping in to announce that it would make scrapping the veto a central plank of its EU presidency beginning in July this year.
However, according to a report in last Sunday's Independent, it now seems that the veto policy, which was made such a play of by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been abandoned. The report quotes a Whitehall source as saying:
"Ministers do not think this is veto territory".
This decision was apparently taken at a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Europe last Thursday.
On the Wednesday of that week, at the conclusion of the debate in this House on the introduction of the euro, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, while winding up for the Government, stated in reply to a question on tax harmonisation from the noble Lord, Lord Shore:
"If we think it is unfair we shall veto it and it will not happen. It is as simple as that".—[Official Report, 20/1/99; col. 662.]
Would the Minister please clarify the Government's position? It would be helpful for business and for individuals to know whether the Government are preparing a climb down and, if so, how far they are going to climb down.
Perhaps I may just remind your Lordships that the UK has lower rates of tax, both personal and corporate, than all other members of the EU. For example, basic rate tax here is 23 per cent. against 38 per cent. in Germany; high rate tax is 40 per cent. here, as against 57 per cent. in France; and, corporation tax is 30 per cent. here, as against 43 per cent. in Italy and 64 per cent. in Germany. United Kingdom taxation is 33 per cent. of its gross domestic product, as against well over 40 per cent. of GDP in other European Union countries.
It is this comparatively light tax regime—and I use the word "comparatively", because I believe the tax man already gets a great deal more of our money than is good for him—which contributes significantly to Britain's position as the most favoured home in the EU for inward investment. Britain's share of this investment actually stands at about 34 per cent. In comparison, Germany attracts about 20 per cent. and France and Spain about 10 per cent. each—this despite the fact that inward investors were fully aware that Britain was not going to join the euro in the first wave. That only goes to disprove the repeated claims by our euro enthusiast friends that Britain will be "marginalised" by not joining the euro. On the contrary, it appears that foreign corporations are happy to invest in a free market economy with relatively benign tax rates and relatively low non-wage costs.
Significantly in Europe it appears to be low or zero taxes that are considered harmful and not high tax rates. I hope that the Government will draw strength from a report published in November of last year by the European Policy Forum entitled, Is Tax Competition Harmful?. It was written by Mr. Keith Marsden, a former World Bank economist. The report examines the taxes and growth rates from 20 economies and concludes:
"The empirical evidence is clear. Tax competition is not harmful … Lower taxes were associated with higher rates of growth, of investment, employment, productivity and private consumption. Countries that chose big government, and more public services financed by higher taxes, experienced slower economic growth".
When the Minister comes to reply, could he please tell the House whether he believes that harmonisation, which is so firmly on the EU agenda, will harmonise our taxes upwards to our competitors' levels or downwards to our own current levels?
The Government, as their successive defensive positions have been overrun, have fallen back on assuring us that on matters of tax the principle of unanimity is "sacrosanct"—I think that that was the
1196
Prime Minister's word. But even if the Government have not now abandoned the "V" word and we are still in fact in "veto country", it appears that single market legislation, which requires only a qualified majority not unanimity, can be used to deal with tax matters. It appears that if varying tax levels within the EU are deemed to obstruct its further development, the European Court of Justice can apply single market law. Perhaps the Minister may care to comment in that respect.
Finally, will the Minister bring the House up to date with the position on eurobonds and on the proposed withholding tax? The eurobond market in London has grown from nothing to be the largest source of such funds in the world. It is a huge advantage to London, but it could easily be lost. Other financial centres do very little of this kind of business, so we would have nothing to lose by implementing the proposed directive. If the tax damages London—and even if the EU as a whole loses business—anything to weaken London's dominance would be seen as a plus by its rivals, notably in Frankfurt.
Therefore, could the Minister inform the House what the Government's intentions are, so that if the eurobond market does have to leave London for Geneva, Zurich or New York, it can at least switch out the lights before it goes? Are we still in veto country, or is a deal being cut to obtain some kind of temporary derogation? If that is the case, what is the price tag? British firms, British consumers and British taxpayers will rightly expect the Government to continue to defend Britain's interests and to maintain our competitive advantage. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm this evening that they will do exactly that.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I should begin by informing the House that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the European Communities brought out a report on taxation and competition policy in the single market last June. I am a member of Sub-Committee A which is occupied with the latter, and we intend to take up the question of taxation and harmonisation very soon. That will at least shed some light on the matter after a lot of heat.
I should say, first, that we ought to consider this question from the point of view of a single market rather than concentrating on the issue of federalism. If you have a single market it is worth considering, as a general principle, which taxes ought to be harmonised and which should not. For example, we know that the differential taxation of beer and spirits harms many businesses in the United Kingdom very adversely because people can go across to Calais and buy such things much more cheaply. Indeed, we have had many complaints in your Lordships' House from people who point out that it is unfair.
Moreover, we also know that between Northern Ireland and the Republic corporation tax is very different—30 per cent. in one and 10 per cent. in the other. That is very unfair competition for Northern Ireland, as has been pointed out in this House. It is not

1197
as if we are the lowest tax territory in the whole world and everyone else has higher taxes. The UK has suffered from unfair tax competition but it has also gained from it.
We ought to establish a few principles with regard to these matters. If we want to have a single market, taxation of certain tradeable goods ought to be, if not equalised, at least co-ordinated, because otherwise it will not be advantageous within a single market to have differential taxation. The Commission has come up with a proposal for VAT harmonisation. I know that we have differential VAT rates if one takes into account zero rating, but eventually, if we do not harmonise VAT, that will create anomalies and the advantage of the single market will be lost.
We should open our minds to thinking about a radical reform of taxation, perhaps moving away from taxation on capital and labour altogether and towards taxation of resources and consumption. Consumption taxation can be co-ordinated across the single market without doing harm to anyone. We should take a radical approach to taxation rather than insist that what we have is best.
8 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I believe that we should approach tax harmonisation in the European Union in the same way as we approach fiscal policy domestically; that is, pragmatically, weighing up the pros and cons. This should not be an ideological issue on which Europhiles all take one view and Eurosceptics another. As a pro-European I do not jump like Pavlov's dog at the prospect of tax uniformity. We need to take a cool and not hot-headed look at what is really essential to the single market, what is good for Britain and Europe and what is good for competition and jobs in particular sectors; for example, financial services in the City.
Let us remember that harmonisation does not have to mean sameness. Harmony in music is the blending of different sounds, the opposite of discordance. The Oxford Dictionary defines harmony as,
"the combination or adaptation of parts … so as to form an orderly whole";
co-ordination, in other words.
It clearly makes sense to avoid or eliminate tax distortions, evasions and havens as much as possible on grounds of promoting a competitive market and stopping the excessive loss of tax revenue. Surely there can be no ideological objection in principle to that. If co-operation between tax authorities can tackle fraud, so much the better. If there could be some achievement of consistency in the definition of the tax base in the different member states—for example on corporate taxation—that could cut business costs by saving on accounting administration. If European tax harmonisation means that News International pays rather more than 7 per cent. tax on its worldwide profits, that would be welcome.
But what must be kept uppermost is the need to safeguard the competitiveness of the European Union and its member states at a time when they have all
1198
rightly put jobs at the top of the list of priorities. There will be a need, with a single currency and a single monetary policy, to retain flexibility in fiscal policy and the setting of tax rates. Let us make clear that there is no suggestion of harmonising income tax.
We must also be sure not to score a British or European own goal. There is some risk of this in the field of taxation of capital and savings. Some 10 years ago the Commission proposed a single common system of withholding tax on interest income. That has sensibly been withdrawn and the current proposal, the so-called "co-existence model", allows member states to choose either to apply a withholding tax or to provide information on income from savings to other member states.
Certainly the City is right to fear that the imposition of withholding tax in the eurobond market could drive that business away, and not to Frankfurt or Paris but out of Europe and offshore. Therefore Europe as a whole would be hurt. Only international co-operation on such taxation, for instance in the OECD, could prevent this disadvantage to the European Union. Even if a withholding tax was applied, that would leave the host member state with the tax receipts, not the member state of residence. Therefore it is insufficient on its own to solve the problem of Germans escaping German tax by putting their savings in Luxembourg.
The Government should therefore continue to oppose the withholding tax for the sake of jobs in the City, jobs in London and jobs in Europe. On the other hand we should support an energy carbon tax throughout Europe. We should be keen on tax co-operation in co-ordinating tax bases, exchanging information and pursuing tax evaders and fraudsters. For eurobonds especially, international agreement must precede a European scheme.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, all countries have their own distinctive tax regimes. Each country develops a mixture of direct and indirect taxes shaped by history, political principles, expediency, electioneering and similar influences. For a free market economist most taxes are either distortionary or debilitating. The one common characteristic of all national treasuries is their insatiable appetite for revenue. On this rapacious approach there are two checks. The first is taxpayer rebellion through avoidance, evasion and emigration. The second is national economic damage as measured objectively by the effects of the Chancellor's depredations on the efficiency of a national economy as compared with competing national economies.
Competition was defined by the Nobel Laureate, Friedrich Hayek, as "the optimum discovery procedure." The Olympic Games are a classic model of competition. They enable us to discover the minimum time, the highest jump, the fastest swim, the longest throw and so on. We rule out artificial aids such as drugs, but we do not ban athletes employing rival techniques or training programmes to suit their taste. Competition works to test these elements and brings out the best system and

1199
encourages all performers to approach the best. In other words, under competition there is a natural drive towards harmonisation, as is exactly the case with free trade. If we rule out subsidies and tariffs, competition between economies embraces competition between rival labour markets, rival tax jurisdictions, rival educational systems, rival management techniques and other national policies. We can learn from the success of others, but we cannot lame them or deprive them of their advantages.
In the single market of the United States, 51 states compete with different sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, even tobacco taxes. But we should mark the following well. Because high taxes would drive business elsewhere, taxes are kept low and differences between the various states are also quite narrow. Tax harmonisation through market pressures pushes rates down. Tax harmonisation through political pressures pushes taxes up. If the EU were to succeed in raising the general level of taxes and enforcing a withholding tax throughout Europe, it would weaken all European economies and would drive mobile capital and enterprise beyond their doomed jurisdiction. Such is the discovery procedure of free competition in the glorious global market.
The Franco-German summit in December called for rapid progress on tax harmonisation. Why will British Ministers not declare their opposition with equal candour and confidence? I ask plainly: will the Government use their veto to block these malignant Franco-German mischiefs of withholding tax and tax uniformity? To prove their European credentials, the Government tend to take abject refuge in weasel words, evasion and deceit about continued endless negotiation. How about the noble Lord coming clean tonight?
8.8 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for raising this subject today.
The analysis prepared by the London Investment Banking Association and mentioned in its submission to the Council of Ministers last September suggests that the proposals for an EU-wide withholding tax are unlikely to be more than marginally successful, because capital movements are fully liberalised. To the contrary, implementation of the proposals, unless all other OECD countries decide to adopt similar measures at the same time, would introduce incentives to divert business to other financial centres outside the EU, causing great damage to the City of London.
As Mr Howard Flight pointed out so clearly in his letter to the Financial Times on 23rd December, what is at peril is London's entire position as the world's main banking capital, not merely as the home of the hugely successful and important eurobond market. I cannot stress too strongly how great is the danger that is faced by the City. If bank deposits move to Hong Kong or New York, so will the related foreign exchange and derivatives business. The threat to employment is therefore at least 100,000 jobs. I, too, ask the Government to make it absolutely clear whether or not they will veto this proposed directive. Will the Minister
1200
state whether he has changed his view since the Answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 5th October?
The second major area of concern that I wish to raise is that the establishment of the European single currency is leading inexorably towards harmonisation of taxes in general. Britain has the lowest rates of income tax in the EU and its corporation tax rates are also among the lowest. But Mr. Lafontaine has said that we must drive forward tax harmonisation in Europe. Mr. Tietmeyer has said that it is an illusion to think that EU states can hold onto their autonomy over taxation policies. The EU's Code of Conduct Group on business taxation has reportedly identified a list of unfair taxes which need to be addressed. Unfair to whom? Do France and Germany think that it is unfair that our low rates of corporation tax and low employment related add-on costs have helped to secure for the United Kingdom by far the largest slice of Japanese direct investment in Europe?
It will be very unfair to the British people if the Government throw away the hard won right of the House of Commons to determine tax rates in this country. I do not want to argue that tax harmonisation is inherently always bad. Clearly, in formulating our economic and fiscal policies in the global economy that exists we need to have regard to those of all our major trading and investment partners—not merely other EU countries, but the United States, Japan and others as well.
However, paramount must be the need to apply fiscal policies that best serve the needs of the British economy and preserve the beneficial tax environment in which the best parts of it—notably the City of London and the financial services industry—can thrive. I look forward to hearing the comments of other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hindlip, who I believe will tell your Lordships about the similar and serious threat faced by the London art market. I hope that in the course of his reply the Minister will tell the House whether he agrees with the German Chancellor and the French Finance Minister, both of whom have recently said that EU rules should be changed to allow majority voting on tax matters.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, in referring to the democratic issue; namely, the power of the House of Commons to control supply. If we examine the Answer given by my noble friend Lord McIntosh to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on 2nd November, there is no doubt that the rights of the House of Commons may well be at risk. His reply made the matter absolutely clear. He said that,
"If a directive is unanimously adopted by the Council of Ministers"
—that is, if Britain failed to use the veto—
"all member states are obliged to implement it".—[Official Report, 2/11/98; col. WA 28.]
by a due date. Indeed, if the directive was not implemented by Parliament, Parliament would be breaking the law and could be fined. That is the position. Our sovereign Parliament would be breaking European law and could have to find the money to pay the fine.

1201
I hope that my noble friend will confirm what I have said; or, if he does not, tell me why I am wrong. This is a fundamental democratic issue. The House of Commons gained its pre-eminence and sovereign power because it gained control over supply. Once it loses control over supply, Parliament will have lost its power, and the executive, whether it be the British or European executive, will have won, and we shall have returned to a situation similar to that under Charles I.
My second point has already been raised. It is the question of confusion. This week, there have been two reports on this matter in the press. One appeared in the Daily Mail on Monday and was headed:
"Labour to surrender EU tax veto".
The article states:
"Ministers have abandoned their key weapon in the battle against common taxes in the EU.
"They have decided they will not use Britain's national veto to block German-led attempts to harmonise tax rates".
That frightened me.
Yesterday, I read in the Daily Telegraph the headline:
"Hewitt pledges UK veto over withholding tax".
Then, although I was slightly encouraged, I became confused—as are many other people, because they do not know what is government policy. This evening we should be told the answer. I hope that the Government will be absolutely firm and will say that they will use the veto on every occasion when our taxes are under threat from a European directive.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Hindlip: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this Question. My livelihood as a director of Christie's, and that of 40,000 other people employed in the British art market, is put at risk by the harmonisation of VAT on the import of works of art into the Community and by the imposition of droit de suite. In the brief time available, I wish to begin by thanking the Government for what they have already tried to do for the art trade. All of us who are involved in it are grateful to the Department of Trade and Industry, although I fear that the department under-estimates—by 5,000—the loss of jobs that harmonisation will bring.
We in the art trade must thank the Prime Minister himself. He has actively lobbied on our behalf and has written to the president of the British Art Market Federation, personally pledging his support. While the Prime Minister's lobbying has been vigorously and sincerely carried out, will it have any effect? Are the French or the Germans listening? It is sad if they are not, because the British art market is second in size only to that of New York, and second to none in its reputation for expertise and integrity. It is by far the largest European market; it is the only European market which can compete with America. The loss of business and loss of jobs as a result of harmonisation can only benefit New York. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that it is not just a question of a single market; it is a world market. The single market to which he refers is only a small part of that world market.
1202
This tax increase will decrease revenue, because there will be so much less to tax. Furthermore, is it really harmonisation? As the Minister knows, all the various other countries in the EU have differing rates of VAT. They are not being persuaded to reduce them to our level—we are just being forced to raise taxes nearer to their levels.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—whom I thank for his endless courtesy on this matter—of the Answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I refer to the Answer already mentioned, on 5th October. He said:
"we are firmly committed to preserving the competitiveness of European Community financial markets".—[Official Report, 5/10/98; col. 162.]
The art market is a financial market as well as a cultural one.
The noble Lord went on to say that there had still not been a cost/benefit analysis on the effects of harmonisation. I believe that that is still the case; perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that. We must have such an analysis. If, as I am sure it will, it bears out what all of us in the art trade believe, the Government must do everything possible including using the veto, not only to protect British interests but European interests as well.
If they do not, London as a commercial centre will suffer. Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with two thoughts. The first is that, out of the 100 offices where Christie's does business, the one in London is still the best and the most profitable. Secondly, this harmonisation is the triumph of the absurd. It seeks to raise taxes in order not to collect them. Worse than killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, it drives the goose into the rival's garden. Even a Brussels commissioner should understand the stupidity of that. In opposing this harmonisation and droit de suite, the Government will help London, help Britain and help Europe.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for giving us the opportunity—however brief—to canter over the course in this important aspect of our relationships with Europe. In a sense, it follows logically that having got a single currency, an economic union and a monetary union, the European Commission should now begin to think about a fiscal union. It is no accident that taxation and harmonisation of taxation should appear as soon as victory has been finally won on the economic and monetary union and the single currency front.
Of course, we are faced with a major challenge and great British interests are at risk. I can only touch on one or two. Current proposals for tax harmonisation are important. Some have been listed, but I remind the House that there were five different tax matters on the agenda of the Vienna summit. On a withholding tax, we are in great danger. We are isolated. It is a British interest and we will have to fight hard to defend our interests, either by avoiding a compromise—which is

1203
simply a disguised surrender—or taking the unpopular course of using a veto and not being at the heart of Europe when we do so.
The other taxes are the energy tax—not mentioned but on the agenda—VAT, corporation tax, and the whole vast area of unfair tax competition. And as we know who chaired the study: Dawn Primarolo, the Paymaster General, in the other place.
I am worried, first, because the Government's reactions up to now have been complacent; secondly, because what has been said is ambiguous and unclear. They signed up to the presidency statement at the end of the Vienna summit. In the presidency statement they agreed to the following vague propositions: the need to control harmful tax competition; the need to reduce the continuing distortion in the single market; and the need to prevent excessive loss of tax revenues.
That opens up a vast area of debate and covers virtually all the range of taxation. Our colleagues in Europe have significantly higher tax rates than we have. Of course, they think it is unfair that we have that advantage. They would like to remove unfairness, and that is built into the treaty. Article 3(a) demands that in the internal market we should not have the distortion of competition. There should be a level playing field. My noble friend who relies heavily on the veto might well consider that among other dangers someone might take us before the European Court of Justice on the charge of the infraction of the basic treaties.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I take part in the debate in order to draw attention to the possible confusion of provisions that will have to be made to cover the pension liabilities of other European states and to speculate on the possibility that harmonisation, especially of corporation tax, might be the backdoor route to involving the United Kingdom in their difficulties.
I have spoken previously on the subject in debate and in Starred Questions to the Government. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. I was assured by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that under Article 140b we would not be required to "bail out"—that was the noble Lord's expression—other member states' pension shortfalls.
The euphoria that followed the launch of the euro has led some leaders such as Herr Lafontaine, and many others already mentioned, to proclaim the arrival of the era of the federal state of Euroland for which harmonisation of tax rates is a pre-requisite.
We can recall that the social chapter was brought in under the health and safety regulations, with the connivance of the European Court of Justice. I ask the Minister: are we sure that Article 140b will not be equally outflanked? It is not a matter of some minor financial adjustment, nor even a canard, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, referred to it on a previous occasion. It is a real and large debt that is accruing. We know the cost to our companies who run occupational pension schemes is in the order of 6 per cent. of their profits which relates to some 12 to 16 per cent. of
1204
payroll costs. Any form of harmonisation will lead to an increase in our taxes to prevent what our neighbours regard as unfair competition. We should be in no doubt that it is our own diligence and forethought that has left us in the fortunate position of having some £850 billion stashed away in trust funds to pay at least part of the demographic bill that awaits us all. Let there be no mistake, this additional charge will compound the problems of those Euroland members who have fudged their way into convergence.
Now there is another plot to eliminate UK competitiveness with the withholding tax at an extortionate rate of 20 per cent. It is designed to damage the City of London and attack its "unfair" position as the leading centre of finance houses in Europe. It seems to be a case where they are cutting off our nose in order to spite their face. It is clear that the tax will drive business away from Euroland to Switzerland, the United States and the Far East.
Meanwhile, the droit de suite is being proposed by QMV. We are told that Her Majesty's Government are fighting it tooth and nail. Can the Minister enlighten us? Is he willing? It is not so much the effect of the euro on our economy that concerns me at the moment. It is the effect the euro has on our partners' aims and ambitions towards ever greater union and ever greater pressure on the UK to compromise its position in world affairs which concerns me.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out, there is a case within a single market for some harmonisation of taxes in some fields. It makes sense to have the same general system of value added tax within a broad range of rates. We would gain from some upward harmonisation of excise duties. It makes sense if we have taxes on the environment, but they should be European Union-wide. As I mentioned the other day, an energy tax could lead to a reduction of employers' taxes, increased GDP and more jobs.
It would make sense to have similar treatment of pensions so that fund managers in Britain could export their expertise to the Continent. There is some sense too in harmonisation of certain aspects of corporation tax. I do not see how Members of this House can object, quite rightly, to the subsidies that are paid to industry on the Continent and at the same time feel that there is no case whatever for looking at special incentives and corporation tax to promote foreign investment. There is a danger of ever bigger subsidies to attract foreign investment. Whether it is done by tax or by grants does not make much difference.
However, the Commission is wrong in its general argument that there has been a reduction of corporation tax and that that has led to higher labour taxes. The Commission wishes to reduce non-wage costs. But the main reason for high non-wage costs is the way in which social security is financed on the Continent. That implies a need to move towards more private pensions. Again, it should be noted that the share of corporation tax has been steady over recent decades. It is a small proportion of GDP. Although the UK has the lowest

1205
rates, its yield from corporation tax is average for the European Union as a whole. In any case, further harmonisation of corporation tax structure is enormously difficult, as one found from the Ruding report some years ago.
Finally, I wish to mention savings. Again, there are disadvantages in a single market if you can avoid or evade tax—quite separate questions—by investing in other countries. We have a 20 per cent. withholding tax in general and there would be advantages if that were more generally applied. But I accept the arguments which have generally been advanced against the proposals coming from the Commission on the withholding tax. It should perhaps pay more attention to its declared aim of preserving the competitiveness of European financial markets. The Commission could certainly learn from the German experience when that country unilaterally imposed a withholding tax and lost billions, or certainly huge amounts.
It is noteworthy that a recent report by the Promethée, a leading, highly regarded French think-tank, makes very much the same arguments: that this is a matter which cannot be considered solely within the European Union; it must be and should be considered within the OECD. The report refers to the danger of a loss of business across the Alps, or, indeed, across the Atlantic. It is not something which concerns only us; it is a general concern. The Commission has said that it will consult—and no doubt it will—and I am sure that the United Kingdom will be extremely effective in making its special representations.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for raising this issue. In the time available, one can do really no more than ask questions. It is not an occasion for detailed analysis.
As I understand it, the European Union finance ministers were meeting today. Has anything emerged from those meetings to shed any further light on the Government's policy which, to say the least—despite some of the Minister's previous remarks—remains shrouded in mystery. He has sought to distinguish between the question of harmonisation of taxes generally and, in particular, concentrated on the question of whether there are harmful tax practices on which there might reasonably be a degree of harmonisation. But a definition of what is harmful is something which we still await.
My understanding is that the European Union working group has drawn up a code of conduct which contains 85 such dangerous practices. These have not been revealed to us. Can the Minister tell us whether he will publish that list? Clearly it is impossible to debate it, and great uncertainty is created if we do not have such a detailed list—if, indeed, it exists.
Let me take two examples. One of the suggestions is that the shipping industry is involved. I was much involved in that particular set of amendments. We have to recognise that the shipping industry is a worldwide
1206
industry and not simply a European industry. Harmonisation in Europe may damage our position worldwide. A similar situation exists in the art market. The effect of harmonisation in Europe may damage our competitive position in the worldwide market.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the problem of withholding tax. The issue is so clear that one really ought not say "Well, we may negotiate some compromise or fudge or whatever". We have an interest in this matter in a way which other European countries do not because of our dominance in the market. We ought to make it absolutely clear that, if necessary, we will use the veto and that it is not up for negotiation. That is a point on which the Minister has not made the position clear.
In addition, it is absolutely clear that there is a move towards harmonisation on value added tax. Previously the Minister has indicated that he does not think that this is so. That is not my understanding of reading the documents. Whatever one may say about rates, the crucial point as far as we are concerned—I steered this tax through the House of Commons originally—is the preservation of zero rating. Can the Minister assure us that zero rating will be protected? Certainly after all the fuss the Government made about the reduction in the rate of tax on fuel, one would have thought that they would have a line and again make it clear that zero rating is not negotiable.
The constant fudging of the issues is dangerous. We need an assurance from the Government that they will use the veto when it is clearly in our national interests to do so.
8.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government approach European Union tax issues in the same way as they approach all European issues, and indeed all tax issues—with a hard-headed assessment of what is in Britain's economic interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, used the word "pragmatic"; I am happy to accept that.
The Government have made it clear that we shall not support any action at European level that will threaten jobs or the competitive position of British business. Any tax proposals will need to pass that fundamental test. The United Kingdom will not sign up to anything that harms investment and jobs or damages the competitive position of Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, and others, sought to cast doubt on what seems to me to be an absolutely clear and unequivocal statement by suggesting that there is something dangerous about the definition of what is fair and unfair tax competition. The position of those who hold the veto is a fail-safe position. It is for us to decide what is acceptable to us and what is not acceptable. If it is not acceptable to us by our own definition, we shall not allow it.
The Government will engage positively with our European partners. It is far better to engage in the debates and shape the outcome than to sit without power on the sidelines. The Government will discuss proposals

1207
constructively in our regular contacts with other member states, but we shall always judge proposals by what is in the national economic interest.
We are in favour of tax competition, not tax harmonisation. And here I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who gave a principled exposition of the need for tax competition rather than tax harmonisation. I entirely agree with him. The way forward for Europe is promotion of economic reforms and competitive markets, not tax harmonisation. Indeed, I said as much in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on 5th October.
However, where there is a case for action at the European level on tax, we will not be afraid to argue for it. In particular, we will continue to work to support effective action to tackle harmful and discriminatory tax practices. I say to my noble friend Lord Shore, we are not ashamed of the word "harmful". It can be well explained and properly discussed, and if we do not like the results of the discussions we shall not allow them to go ahead.
The Government are in favour of concerted action at European level to deal with unfair tax practices that distort real competition, to close tax loopholes and to cease unfair state aids and unfair tax breaks wherever they occur. The Government can deliver those promises. Questions of tax require unanimous agreement, so there is no question of tax changes that we do not support being imposed on us by Brussels.
That is without prejudice to the answer, which was literally correct, that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on 2nd November. If a directive has been accepted unanimously it has to be enforced by Parliament—of course that is the case—but we have made it clear that British taxation will be decided by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer when he presents his Budget to Parliament. As I have already explained, we have the veto on any tax proposals that would counter that proposition.
We are not isolated in Europe in our stance on tax. UNICE, the European employers' organisation, in its report on company taxation in the single market, stressed that it did not think that full harmonisation of company taxation will ever be needed in the European Union. Just last week, the president of the federation of German industry, Hans Olaf Heukel, stressed that we should not try to eliminate competition between countries, and high corporate taxes across Europe cannot be the solution.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of Germany issued a common statement. They support tough action to prevent harmful tax competition and do not support a unified system of corporation tax. There is no question of harmonising income tax, and they will not accept proposals that destroy European Union jobs or damage European Union competitiveness.
I have discussed the principles of the Government's approach. Let me turn now to the tax measures which are under discussion and, indeed, the areas in which there are no proposals. There is no proposal for harmonisation of income tax in the European Union.
1208
There is no proposal, despite what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and my noble friend Lord Shore say, to harmonise corporation tax.
The Government have made it clear that they support EU action to tackle harmful tax practices. These distort competition in the European economies. As my noble friend Lord Desai said, other member states' harmful tax practices damage investment in the UK. Tackling harmful tax competition will create the preconditions for healthy competition. The code of conduct referred to in debate tackles business tax measures that may be harmful, and I am pleased to hear that it will be considered by the European Communities Committee. But it does not deal with tax harmonisation.
The code is being taken forward by the Code of Conduct Group chaired by the Paymaster General. Aspects of the UK system, together with those of other member states, are being considered by that group. There are five UK measures on the initial list being considered by that group. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that although the total may be 85 at present, they are confidential submissions to ECOFIN by individual member states and it is not possible to publish them. I can tell the noble Lord about the UK's submissions. They relate to the following: international headquarter companies (although that matter is to be abolished in April of this year); special tax measures for the film industry; enterprise zones; 100 per cent. first year capital allowances for small and medium enterprises in Northern Ireland and roll-over relief on the disposal of ships. The fact that these are on the initial list of measures that are being considered by that group does not mean that they are harmful. The view of the UK is that none of these measures is harmful within the meaning of the code and the UK will submit a robust defence of the measures.
I turn now to the taxation of savings. The rationale of the draft directive is the prevention of tax evasion. The Government are committed to effective international action to prevent tax evasion and protect the competitiveness of the financial service industries of the United Kingdom and Europe. We believe that exchange of information on a global basis is much more likely to be an effective solution to the problem of evasion than the compromise formula that is currently on offer. We share the reservations expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about withholding tax. But it is not only the United Kingdom that has problems in this area. There is a long history of difficulties in finding acceptable solutions. We shall negotiate in good faith to try to find a solution that is acceptable to all, but we have made it clear that any future directive must exclude the eurobond market and that the proposals as currently drafted are unacceptable and if necessary we would have to veto them.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Stoddart, said that they were confused. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that the issue was shrouded in mystery. I am sorry to say that the confusion is in the minds of the popular press and noble Lords, not at all in the statements of the Government. We cannot be clearer than we have been.

1209
On the subject of indirect tax, shortly before Christmas the Commission made a proposal to extend the temporary 15 per cent. minimum standard rate and introduce a new 25 per cent. maximum standard rate to the end of this year. That would not affect the UK's standard rate of 17.5 per cent. Like my noble friend Lord Desai, we support a minimum rate but we do not believe that there is an overwhelming case for a maximum rate. In any case, discussions have already indicated that a number of member states cannot accept the introduction of a maximum rate. The probability is that there will simply be agreement to renew the minimum standard rate first agreed by the previous government. Further, there is no risk of the United Kingdom being forced to give up its zero VAT rates on food or children's clothes. All EU VAT matters are subject to unanimity. Therefore, we can guarantee that we shall honour our manifesto pledges.
The Commission has also tabled a draft directive on energy products. This suggests the replacement of existing mineral oils duty directives with a new Community framework for the taxation of all energy products. The Government have made clear that they cannot accept for social policy reasons any obligation to put new taxes on the domestic consumption of gas, coal or electricity.
A number of specific points have been made in the debate to which I shall try to respond. The noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, touched on the art market. He is aware—because we have corresponded upon and discussed the matter—that we are very keen to extend the derogation on the minimum agreed by the previous government or preferably to level down to other countries. What we shall not do is level up to 5 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and my noble friend Lord Shore referred to the European Court of Justice. The ECJ cannot impose harmonisation of personal or corporate tax rates or introduce any common tax regime in areas where member states have not agreed one. These decisions are for governments and are subject to unanimity. The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said that on pensions water had flowed under the bridge. No water has flowed under the bridge; it has flowed only through his mind. I gave cast iron assurances last time we debated this matter and I stick to them.
The policy of the Government is clear. We shall judge every issue on its merits as determined by Britain's national economic interest. We shall engage constructively with our European partners but shall not accept a proposal if it is not in the national interest. We shall ensure that tax decisions continue to be taken unanimously. In "The Hunting of the Snark" the Bellman in the end was forced to say:
"What I tell you three times is true".
I have told noble Lords far more than three times.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
8.46 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 5.
[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 247:
Page 63, line 45, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 247 and the other amendments in the same group, Amendments Nos. 248, 259, 260 and 277 to 279, require publication of the advice given by the consultative panel and the Director-General of Fair Trading in relation to Parts I, II and IV of the new Schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. There is no equivalent provision in relation to Part III because that is covered by Amendment No. 267 which leaves out that part altogether.
The respective roles of the panel and the Director-General of Fair Trading are important and should be transparent. It should therefore, I believe, be a requirement, not just a power, that the advice they have given should be published. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: These amendments provide that the consultative panel and the Director-General of Fair Trading shall, rather than may, publish the advice that they give to the Lord Chancellor under the new Schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. I believe that the amendment would make little difference in practice since such advice must be sent to the authorised body concerned and would be made available to anyone else who wanted it. The 1990 Act gave my advisory committee and the director-general a discretion to publish, but the advice is referred to in their respective annual reports and would in practice be available to those wanting to see it. I am, however, happy to accept these amendments. They are Amendments Nos. 247, 248, 259, 260, 277 and 279.
There is an oddity in this series of amendments in that they do not amend Part III of Schedule 4, presumably because noble Lords who tabled the amendments are opposed to the provisions in Part III. Nevertheless, I think that Schedule 4 should be internally consistent and if these amendments are made I shall seek to amend Part III, accordingly, on Report.
Another oddity relates to Amendment No. 278. That amendment would delete lines 42 and 43 already amended by an earlier amendment tabled by noble Lords. It is an odd amendment, not because it contradicts an earlier amendment, but because it refers only to the advice given by the Director-General of Fair Trading and only in relation to the revocation of designation as an authorised body. I trust that that particular amendment will be withdrawn on the basis that I accept all the others in the grouping.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful for the concession made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is absolutely right that the schedule should be consistent internally and that similar

1211
amendments should be made to Part III. The fact that my name has been put to Amendment No. 278 is due to the mass of amendments that emerged from, in this case, the Bar Council. I did my best to look through them to make sure that they were correct, but I obviously failed to notice this one. I am entirely happy not to move it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 248 to 251 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 65, line 1, leave out ("the applicant applies to him in writing,") and insert ("he refuses the application,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 252 is the first of a series of amendments. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 265, 272 and 286. The first three amendments require reasons to be given by the Lord Chancellor whenever he refuses an application for designation under Part I, refuses application for a change of rules under Part II, or imposes a change in rules under Part III. Under the Bill, reasons have to be given only if requested in writing.
It is, however, important that reasons should be given automatically. A body adversely affected by a decision should be told the reasons immediately so that it can, for example, if necessary, take action by way of application for a judicial review. The general principle is that quasi-judicial decisions should contain reasons. I believe that the Lord Chancellor's powers are, effectively, quasi-judicial. In that case, it is desirable that the Lord Chancellor should observe good practice, which is to publish reasons with a decision, especially where a party may suffer adversely. When an application is being approved there may be no necessity to give a reason.
Amendment No. 286 is in a slightly different position. Under Part IV there is no provision for notice to be given at all to a body whose designation is to be revoked. The amendment requires notice of reasons to be given to the relevant body on request. If it seems appropriate that a reason should be given, at least if requested, and to bring it into line with the other amendments, notice of reason should be given automatically. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am happy to agree to the purpose of these amendments in principle. Of course, it is right that reasons should be given for decisions. The existing provisions in the Bill allow for the Lord Chancellor to notify the applicant body of the reasons for his decision (on becoming an authorised body, and altering a rule of conduct or qualification regulation) if the applicant applies to the Lord Chancellor in writing. In the case of the call-in power, the authorised body can likewise obtain the Lord Chancellor's reasons by applying to him in writing.
The first three amendments would make it mandatory for the Lord Chancellor to supply his reasons if the application for designation or a proposed rule change was refused. The last would enable a formerly authorised body to apply for reasons for the making of an Order in Council revoking its designation.
1212
The amendment will not make any practical difference. In practice, applicant authorised bodies and authorised bodies would always be given reasons when their application was unsuccessful. The same would apply under the call-in procedure. I agree that the reasons for the Lord Chancellor's decision should be made available to the body which it affects. That is what happens now and what would happen under the new provisions with or without the amendment. I do, however, believe that administrative decisions should be supported by stated reasons. I am therefore willing to take the issue away and consider how the Bill can be strengthened in the way proposed. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart: In view of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 253 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 65, line 15, after ("conduct") insert ("which relates to the grant of a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation").
The noble Lord said: Telegraphically, this amendment is designed to ensure that alterations to rules of conduct only require approval by the Lord Chancellor if they relate to the grant of rights of audience or the right to conduct litigation. The Law Society and the Bar Council are both extremely keen that this amendment is passed. It is important to make clear that the provisions of Schedule 5 are not designed to provide a requirement on the Lord Chancellor to approve changes to rules of conduct generally, but only where the rules apply to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I have sympathy with the intention behind these amendments. The point has been mentioned to me previously. The noble Lord wishes to restrict the statutory approval procedure to qualification regulations and rules of conduct which relate to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. So does the Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord also wishes to restrict the Lord Chancellor's call-in power, although it is true to say that in other amendments he would oppose the power altogether, to qualification regulations and rules of conduct which relate to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. So does the Lord Chancellor. However, in relation to the call-in power, I should make it clear that the Lord Chancellor would go further than the amendment. He has already said that he will look further at how the call-in power may be restricted, not to rules and regulations related to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation, but to those which are "unreasonably" restrictive of rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. This was a point raised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and, as I have indicated, the Lord Chancellor is already considering how its concern can be met.

1213
Perhaps I may turn to the point raised by the amendment: that the provision be restricted to rights-of-audience type rules and not to all rules. Qualification regulations and rules of conduct—the phrase used in the Bill—are already defined in Sections 27 and 28 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 by reference to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation. The definition in Section 27 of that Act, for example, is as follows:
"'Rules of conduct', in relation to an authorised body, means rules of conduct (however they may be described) as to the conduct required of members of that body in exercising any right of audience granted by it".
Section 119, the definition section of the 1990 Act, relies on the definitions found in Sections 27 and 28. So only those rules and regulations which relate to the grant or the exercise of a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation are subject to the statutory approval procedure. That is the position now; it will remain the position under the existing—that is, amended—provisions in the Bill.
I do not think that the amendments are sufficiently wide in referring only to the "grant" of a right. That in my view is too restrictive. The Bill, like the 1990 Act, covers not only rules governing the grant of rights but also their exercise.
To sum up, the amendments are unnecessary to meet the point so clearly put by the noble Lord. They do not go far enough in relation to the call-in power. The Lord Chancellor has already indicated that he will seek to deal with that. In any event, even if they were in the target area, they are drafted too restrictively because they do not refer to "exercise". In the circumstances, with the greatest respect, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: In thanking the noble and learned Lord for his reply, I look forward keenly to seeing the fresh draft that he will no doubt table at Report stage. I counted at least two bonus points in his reply which I gratefully accept. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 65, line 16, at end insert ("and the designated judges (acting, in the event of disagreement, by majority)").
The noble Lord said: This is the first in a group of amendments which seek to retain the judicial veto on applications for changes of rules under Part II of the new Schedule 4. The principle has already been discussed. I do not propose to go into it again. However, there is a special feature in connection with Part II. Part II is the only part of the schedule in relation to which there is no parliamentary control. That was true under the 1990 Act—the old version of Schedule 4—but it is equally true under the revised version.
The reason that there is no parliamentary control is reasonably apparent. It is that if a rule change put forward by an authorised body meets with no objection
1214
by the Lord Chancellor or any of the designated judges, why should it need to be made by a statutory instrument? Rule changes could have a radical effect on rights of audience—for example, by widely extending them as a result of changes in the rules of an existing authorised body—which could have virtually the same effect as admitting a new authorised body. That being so, it seems to me that there is a case for retaining here a degree of judicial control in lieu of parliamentary control and extending to Part II the same principle that we seek to extend to the other parts; that is, that the approval should require the joint action of the Lord Chancellor and at least two of the designated judges. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble Lord indicated, we have a feeling of déjà vu in our discussion of this group of amendments. They are essentially the same as the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 245. They are similarly intended to reinstate the veto of the designated judges or the decisions taken under Schedule 4 to the 1990 Act which will be substituted by Schedule 5 to the Bill.
As the noble Lord said, the difference is that these amendments relate to Part II of the schedule rather than Part I. Part II deals with the procedure for approving alterations in the rules of authorised bodies.
As before, the amendments would not restore the individual vetoes of each judge. They would require decisions to be taken jointly by them and the Lord Chancellor, and in the event of a difference of opinion, by a majority of the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor. That would mean that the Lord Chancellor could act only if at least two of the four judges agreed with him.
The issues of principle are the same in relation to Part I as Part II. I do not repeat the arguments. I do not accept that constitutionally rights of audience are a matter for the judiciary to determine. On the contrary, they are a matter for Parliament to determine. They are statutory rights under the 1990 Act in exactly the same way as rights to conduct litigation, and they are properly subject ultimately to parliamentary control.
The power that is given to the Lord Chancellor by Part II of the schedule is that of agreeing, or not agreeing, to proposals initiated by the authorised bodies to alter those of their rules which relate to rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation. Part II importantly does not give the Lord Chancellor the power to initiate such changes himself. That is an important point. Most applications to alter the rules in practice are routine and uncontroversial. But they still take a substantial time to process under the complex procedures of the 1990 Act. Part II will enable me to approve simple changes quickly after consultation with the designated judges. But more complex or controversial changes will be referred to the new legal services consultative panel and the Director-General of Fair Trading for advice before a decision is taken.
As I have already said, the designated judges will retain a powerful role in advising me on the exercise of the powers in the new Schedule 4 to the Act. I repeat

1215
that it is unlikely that we will disagree about many or any applications made under the Act. However, I agree with the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls that the current system does not work. Responsibility for making changes and taking decisions should lie with the Lord Chancellor as a Minister accountable to Parliament. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Naturally, I am disappointed with the noble and learned Lord's reply. While I agree that parliamentary control is appropriate, there is under Part II no question of any parliamentary control. That is why the position is somewhat different. Obviously, I have no intention of pressing the amendment tonight and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 256 to 258 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendments Nos. 259 and 260:
Page 66, line 31, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
Page 66, line 45, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 261 and 262 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 67, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The Lord Chancellor shall not refuse the application unless he has sought the advice of the Consultative Panel.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to Part II, the approval by the Lord Chancellor of rule changes sought by authorised bodies. On such an application, the Lord Chancellor may ask advice from a consultative panel, but does not have to do so. Paragraph 10 allows the Lord Chancellor to act without consulting the panel after seeking and considering advice from designated judges.
If the rule changes are straightforward and uncontroversial, and the Lord Chancellor proposes to approve them, I see no need for the panel to consider them. However, I believe that it would be inappropriate for the Lord Chancellor to reject an application without consulting the panel. The authorised body would have a justifiable grievance if he did so. The amendment would prevent that. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I accept in principle the purpose of the amendment. The noble Lord is right in saying that the purpose of not consulting would be in an uncontroversial application. If the Lord Chancellor is to refuse an application it is appropriate that he should consult the consultative panel. He would do so in practice and there is no reason why that should not be put on the face of the Bill. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on the basis that we will come back with another one because we are unsure of the drafting.
Lord Goodhart: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 264 to 266 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 68, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 on page 69.
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the same point. It proposes to leave out Part III altogether. In order to avoid having to go through the issue again, it might be convenient to deal with further amendments which seek to leave in Part III but require the consent of two of the designated judges. The same principle applies to Part IV.
The principle has been discussed at length. The power of the Lord Chancellor under Part III to enforce rule changes on authorised bodies has undoubtedly aroused more objections than any other part of the Bill. It has been attacked in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in a public lecture and Mr. Sydney Kentridge in an opinion referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
When those two people speak it is wise to listen. Neither is in any sense a professional trade unionist. Both are people of strong liberal commitment, both coming from the Republic of South Africa. During the apartheid era, the South African legal profession and judiciary had a relatively good record. They displayed a high degree of independence. It could not prevent the enactment of unjust laws but at least it ensured that those charged with breaches of the laws were given a fair trial. As Mr. Kentridge pointed out, one of the South African Government's objectives was to obtain control over the legal profession, to impose their will on it and to get rid of its inconvenient independence, and they were unable to do that.
I am not suggesting that the present Lord Chancellor would in any way abuse his powers under Part III. That is not a mere conventional statement. On these Benches we recognise fully his achievement in introducing the Human Rights Act and taking it through your Lordships' House. That illustrates his profound personal commitment to human rights. But in giving himself powers which he would exercise benevolently, he is also giving his unknown and unpredictable successors powers which they could exercise malignly.
The Lord Chancellor has moved some way from the original proposal by accepting that rule changes can be made only by order approved by affirmative resolution, which was not the position originally in the White Paper. But I do not believe that that is enough. I have already expressed doubts as to whether even the affirmative resolution procedure is an adequately effective safeguard. That power, if wrongly exercised, could do very grave damage to the independence of the legal profession.
I am not an absolutist on this issue. Amendment No. 271 allows the Lord Chancellor to make an order for rule changes if two or more of the designated judges approve. If the Lord Chancellor were minded to accept that amendment, I should not seek to press this one. But I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor should have power, even if that power must be endorsed by statutory

1217
instrument, to enforce rule changes of authorised professional bodies even if not a single one of the designated judges agrees with it. If that happens, either the Lord Chancellor should back down or he should impose rule changes by primary legislation. I have never suggested for a moment that that would not be an appropriate course.
I turn now to amendments dealing with Part IV on this issue; that is, Amendments Nos. 275, 276 and 280 to 284 inclusive. They give the Lord Chancellor power to revoke designation as an authorised body. Paragraph 25(2) in Schedule 5 provides when that designation can be revoked. Under paragraph 25(2)(a) or (b), there is obviously no problem where the revocation is agreed by the body whose designation is being revoked. But the Lord Chancellor has a power to recommend revocation under paragraph 25(2)(c) where he is satisfied,

"that the circumstances at the time when he is considering whether to make the recommendation are such that, had that body then been applying to become an authorised body, its application would have failed".
In theory, that power can be exercised so as to revoke the designation of the Bar Council or the Law Society. That would happen only if a dictatorship assumed power, and no statute or constitution can give an ultimate protection against a violent dictatorship. But that illustrates the width of the power.
Furthermore, the test for revocation is the Lord Chancellor's belief that had the body in question been applying to become an authorised body, that application would have failed. That is a very unsatisfactory test because Part I, which provides for approval, contains no criteria for granting the application. Therefore, the test is doubly subjective.
The Lord Chancellor's satisfaction that the relevant circumstances exist is necessarily subjective, as is his decision as to why the application would have failed in the absence of any identifiable criteria. For the reasons which I have already stated, I do not believe that the need for approval by Order in Council, by the affirmative resolution procedure, is, in relation to powers of such outstanding constitutional importance, a sufficient safeguard.
Revocation of the rights of an existing body has a far more serious effect on the administration of justice than the extension of rights to a new body. I believe that the consent of at least two of the designated judges is necessary before an Order in Council, under Part IV, can be made. Once again, if not, then the Lord Chancellor should have to enact primary legislation.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I certainly agree that when Mr. Sidney Kentridge Q.C. or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, speak, it is wise to listen but it is not obligatory to agree with them.
I recognise that Part III of the new Schedule 4 is highly controversial. But the power is not unfettered either in its scope or in its exercise. It relates only to those rules and regulations which govern rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation. I accept that it
1218
should be used only to remove undue restrictions on the exercise of those rights. I have already said that I will bring forward an amendment to this effect. The exercise of the power is subject to an extensive consultation procedure and then to approval by both Houses under the affirmative procedure.
I have to say that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that approval by both Houses under the affirmative procedure is insufficient either in practice or in constitution. Because of the requirement for affirmative approval the possibility of some maverick Lord Chancellor of the future suddenly taking it into his head to re-write the rules of the legal profession and being subject to no control cannot be substantiated.
We have had this argument already. I will be as brief as I can. There are several lines of argument advanced against this power. One is an absolutist position: that it is constitutionally wrong for the Executive and the legislature to have a power of this nature over the legal profession. In this view rights of audience in particular are and have been a matter for the judiciary where these exclusive rights of audience were delegated or conferred by the judiciary on the Bar at some remote period of history, a transaction of which unfortunately no written record survives.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer demonstrated at Second Reading, I would suggest conclusively, that the argument that Parliament and the Executive simply have voluntarily abstained from intervening in rights of audience is simply inaccurate. Parliament has often legislated on the subject, not least in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 itself. Since that Act all rights of audience have been placed on a statutory basis, including those of the Bar.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. This argument I am afraid is once again getting repetitive because I have made it clear before and must make it clear again that I have never objected to the power of Parliament to change these rules by primary legislation. The real question here is the adequacy of secondary legislation.
The Lord Chancellor: That is the real question so far as concerns the noble Lord, but the noble Lord must appreciate that we disagree on this matter. There is not much virtue in disagreeing again. That itself would be repetitious, but the noble Lord must also appreciate that I am not merely addressing him; I am addressing the whole Chamber in Committee and there is a wider public interested in these matters.
What I was explaining was that barristers do not exercise these rights of audience, derived in some curious way from the judiciary. What they exercise are statutory rights which have been granted to them by the Bar Council, which is a body authorised for that purpose under an Act of Parliament, the 1990 Courts and Legal Services Act. The Act also imposes a statutory procedure for approving changes in these rights. It is simply untrue that rights of audience have historically

1219
been the exclusive reserve of the judiciary in which the legislature and the Executive have uniformly abstained from intervening.
The fact is that extensions of rights of audience have often taken place as a result of government legislation as the judiciary have either failed to see the need for such extensions or have thought that they lacked the power to bring them about. For example, Section 2 of the Trials for Felony Act as long ago as 1836 allowed barristers and attorneys rights of audience in magistrates' courts following a judicial decision that they had no entitlement to appear there. Parliament struck down the view of the judges; Parliament is sovereign.
In 1846 Parliament legislated again to enable barristers to appear in the Court of Common Pleas which had been traditionally reserved to the Serjeants at Law. When the Crown Court was established in 1971 the Courts Act enabled the Lord Chancellor to direct that solicitors should be able to appear in any description of proceedings that he might specify. Rights of audience in the county courts were dealt with in the County Courts Act 1984 and, before that, in the Acts of 1959 and 1934.
The "authorised bodies", including the Bar Council, are so called because they are authorised to grant those rights under the 1990 Act. Their rules and regulations relating to those rights are not made through powers delegated by the judiciary through the Inns of Court; they are made under statutory authority and subject to a statutory approval procedure.
At the time the 1990 Act was passed, the Bar and the Law Society of course already had rules in place—this addresses the next point of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. These were deemed to be approved for the purposes of the Act, but were made subject to a procedure under which they could be challenged and would fall if not upheld unanimously by the designated judges and the Lord Chancellor. It cannot be in the public interest for a single judge to have such power.
I therefore already have an individual veto over a large part—if not the majority—of the rules and regulations of the Bar Council and the Law Society. I could, for example, strike down the Bar's rules about employed lawyers, if I wished, and I would not need the approval of Parliament or the designated judges to do so. Of course, I would not dream of doing so.
Why, then, have I proposed to take this new power? There are two reasons. First, my existing power is only to strike down rules, and not to replace them. We all believe that lawyers should be subject to rules and regulations, in the public interest, and it would be inappropriate for me to remove rules merely to leave an unregulated vacuum. Secondly, my existing power does not allow me to revisit rules which have been approved, but which have proved to be unacceptably restrictive in practice or have become outmoded. The new power I propose will also have the advantage of much greater scrutiny over the actions of the Lord Chancellor. He will no longer be able to strike down or alter any rules unless Parliament has approved. I emphasise this point. The revocation power only relates to bodies authorised by
1220
Order in Council. The Bar and the Law Society are authorised by statute—the 1990 Act—and therefore the revocation power has no application.
Finally, there remains a deeper question. Is it the view of the Government that they expect such entrenched hostility from the legal profession, such opposition to any moves to widen rights of audience, that they envisage the Lord Chancellor having to use his exceptional fall-back power regularly? The answer to that question is, "Certainly not". I and my department have excellent relations with the legal profession which we are confident will continue. I believe that most of the Bar have now accepted, perhaps with some reluctance, that rights of audience in the higher courts will be extended to Crown prosecutors and those who are wise among them will not be in the least encouraged by tonight's aberrant vote in which the Liberal Democrat Benches opposite did not participate.
I think that it is generally accepted that it is right, in the public interest, that rights of audience in the higher courts will be extended to Crown prosecutors, to other employed lawyers and to solicitors, provided that they meet the necessary requirements. I look forward to the Bar making proposals to grant rights to conduct litigation to employed barristers. I hope that the mindset among some of the Bar resisting any form of modernisation will shortly become a part of a rather unbelievable past.
The record of inactivity over the past decade, since the 1990 Act was passed, in my firm view demands action, and now. This backstop power, which I hope that neither I nor any successor Lord Chancellor will ever have to exercise, will spur the authorised bodies into sensible action in the public interest if they know that the Lord Chancellor will, in the last resort, and only with Parliament's approval, ensure that Parliament's will is carried into effect in matters which relate to what are inherently restricted practices and can be justified only by reference to the public interest. I repeat that Parliament, not the judiciary, is the ultimate judge of the public interest. I hope on that basis that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I do not think that the Lord Chancellor will have expected me to listen to his statement on this group of amendments with much enthusiasm. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate this evening to take the matter further. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 69, line 36, after ("shall") insert (", if he is satisfied that any qualification, regulation or rule of conduct is unduly restrictive of rights of audience or of a right to conduct litigation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: At the risk of being tiresome, this amendment was grouped with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which he has not moved, Amendment No. 268.
It may be that I am the only Member of the Committee who is not now crystal clear about the position we have arrived at in the course of the last few debates. Of course I assume, for the purpose of this amendment, that changes in the rights of audience and particularly in enforcing rule changes will be made by the Lord Chancellor with no participation in the decision-making by the designated judges. I say that I assume it; as to whether I approve of it, I remain something of a Hamlet, and I shall watch this space at subsequent stages.
We have had some incursions into legal history. At Second Reading my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer pointed out that there were historical precedents for changes to the rights of audience which were not initiated by the senior judiciary. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has just repeated them. The examples they gave were of interventions by Parliament, which is not what this Bill originally proposed. Incursions into legal history are always fascinating yet it is always perhaps a little dangerous to reduce them to single sentences as that may mean an over-simplification. Certainly, in the late 16th century, when the present structure relating to rights of audience was developed, it was the judges who sought to restrict the rights of audience in the superior common law courts to those who, by their studies, had made themselves competent. Perhaps it is fair to say that the subject seems to have been regarded less as a constitutional issue than as a matter of consumer protection.
However, my noble and learned friends are right: there have been times when the legislature has felt a need to intervene. I seem to remember that in the late 14th century, Alice Perrers, the mistress of Edward III, became so notorious for intervening in court, particularly in favour of her friends and presumably of her paying acquaintances, that in 1376 Parliament passed an Act forbidding women to practise in the law courts. So the precedents go back a long way.
However, as I ventured to say, those precedents were about interventions by Parliament. That is not what is proposed in the Bill; indeed, the Bill proposes that the intervention shall be by my noble and learned friend alone. Perhaps it is not totally irrelevant to point out again that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I are privileged to be members, suggested that we should consider two restrictions on the power of the Lord Chancellor to alter rights of representation under Schedule 5.
It suggested, first, that there should be some precondition stated by Parliament on the face of the Bill so that the Lord Chancellor might alter the provisions only if a case had been made out for the changes. In Amendment No. 270 I have tried to follow as far as possible the actual wording of the committee. I know there was an earlier debate about that, but I would be most grateful to know the reactions of my noble and learned friend about interposing some such statement at this stage. As I understand it, it would make it possible for decisions of the Lord Chancellor to be the subject of
1222
judicial review. That does not seem to me to be the end of civilisation as we know it. For the moment, therefore, I propose to move my amendment.
As to the second recommendation of the Committee—namely, that the matter should be subject to parliamentary control by the affirmative resolution procedure—my noble and learned friend has said repeatedly during the course of our debates that that will be the case and that that is what he proposes. Therefore, I can spare noble Lords an intervention at a later stage by saying now that I do not propose to move Amendment No. 273 in due course. For the moment, I beg to move Amendment No. 270.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, have not moved their Amendment No. 268. However, as I would have expected, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell has stuck to his amendment to the last, and moved it. I should remind my noble and learned friend that I clearly stated my position in relation to the matter when making my opening speech to this Chamber at the outset of our considerations on the Bill in Committee. Of course, in practice the call-in power, if it is used at all, will only be used to remove restrictive rules. Therefore, I am content in principle to accept a limitation of the type that these amendments would impose, as indeed I have already said. However, I shall need to consider precisely how the amendment should be drafted. I hope that I shall be able to return to the matter on Report with an amendment. In the meantime, I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My noble and learned friend cannot say fairer than that. However, I wanted to ensure that what he said earlier applied particularly to this provision. For the moment I am content and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 271 to 273 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 69, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) When an order under this paragraph is laid before either House of Parliament there shall be laid with it copies of all representations made under paragraphs 18 and 21 and advice given under paragraphs 19, 20 and 22.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak shortly to this amendment. If the Lord Chancellor makes an order imposing rule changes under Part III of the schedule, the amendment would require him to lay before Parliament the representations received by him from the body whose rules are to be changed and the advice received from the consultative panel, the Director-General of Fair Trading and the designated judges.
The Lord Chancellor has already accepted that the advice from the consultative panel and the Director-General of Fair Trading should be published, but, when considering an Order in Council in this case, it seems to me that it would be appropriate for Parliament to have before it all the material which is

1223
relevant to considering whether an order should be adopted. What I believe requires to be added to the advice of the consultative panel and the Director-General of Fair Trading are the representations made by the body whose rules are to be changed and the advice given by the designated judges. That is clearly information which Parliament ought to have before it when considering whether to approve the order.
Amendment No. 285 has the same effect as Amendment No. 274 in relation to Part IV which gives the Lord Chancellor the power to revoke the designation of an authorised body. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I already indicated my position in principle in relation to this in response to a question directly put to me earlier in these proceedings by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He asked whether I would be willing, where my decision departed from the advice of the designated judges, to publish both their advice and my reasons for not accepting it. I said that so far as I was concerned, in principle I would be happy to do so.
The representations in question—that is to say, those covered by these amendments—are from the authorised body and the advice is from the legal services consultative panel and the Director-General of Fair Trading. I certainly have no objection in principle, and indeed would support, any of these being laid with the draft resolutions. However, despite the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, I have to express some reserve in relation to the position of the designated judges until I can ascertain collegiately what the position of the designated judges is.
There is no provision on the face of the Bill for the advice of the judges to be published, although nothing whatsoever prevents them from publishing their advice if they wish to do so. Under the 1990 Act the designated judges are of course joint decision makers, and there is provision for the applicant to obtain the reasons given by each of the designated judges, as well as the Lord Chancellor, in reaching his decision under the 1990 Act. These amendments would require their advice to me to be published. Whereas I have no objections whatsoever to that in principle—as I have already indicated in my response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick—it is a novel step for the judges' advice to the Lord Chancellor to be published, and one which I would wish to discuss with them, as it were collegiately, before coming to a settled view, although for my part I wish to make it absolutely plain that I would be content for the judges to be treated in exactly the same way as the consultative panel and the Director-General of Fair Trading.
The value in the judges' advice of course rests in their experience and independence. All I say is that I wish to take time to consider with the judges collegiately how to proceed in relation to that part of the amendment. In the meantime on that basis I should be grateful if the noble Lord will withdraw these amendments.
Lord Goodhart: On that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 275 and 276 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 70, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 278 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 70, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 280 to 286 not moved.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Overriding duties of advocates and litigators]:
9.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 20, line 40, at end insert—
("(2B) An act—

(a) which is intended by the person committing it to bring about a breach of the duty imposed by subsection (2A)(a); or

(b) which the person committing it ought reasonably to appreciate is likely to bring about such a breach,

shall be punishable as a contempt of the court concerned.'"').
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to strengthen the provisions of the clause by providing a sanction against those who procure a breach of it.
The Government's recognition of the duties of advocates and litigators to the court and to their codes of conduct is welcome. But this clause is simply declaratory. It provides no sanction whatsoever for inducing a breach of it. The advocate or litigator himself may be liable to professional disciplinary penalties, but those who are not members of the regulatory professions are not subject to disciplinary rules at all.
There is an obvious danger that employers may seek to put their employees under pressure to act in breach of their duties to the court or to their codes of conduct. That would certainly be a breach of Clause 36, but there is no sanction for that breach. Given the duty to the court, the sensible solution would appear to be to make the breach of this clause a contempt of court and allow the court to impose its own sanctions.
Often, the fault will lie not with the lawyer, who may be acting perfectly properly and be placed in an impossible position by his employer, but with the employer who created the situation. It is crucial that the person actually procuring the breach should be held liable for it. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I read these amendments, they are aimed at someone who induces the lawyer to act in breach of his duty under Clause 36. Therefore the provision would impose on a secondary party a liability for contempt of court.

1225
We have carefully considered the amendments and believe, for reasons that I shall outline, that they are neither appropriate nor necessary. They would in effect be imposing a liability for contempt which would not necessarily attach to the advocate or litigator himself; that is, the notional primary party. That is because, while it might constitute a contempt for a lawyer to act in a way which breached his duty to the court in the interests of justice, it would not necessarily be a contempt of court by the lawyer to act in a way that breached Clause 36. It would be a matter for the court to decide in each case. The courts are in fact very slow to penalise lawyers for what may simply be an error of judgment(as the cases on wasted costs orders have shown).
Lay members of the public—such as employers or clients—have to rely on the advocate or the litigator to explain where the interests of justice lie in relation to a particular action. It is for the lawyer to explain whether any proposed course of action would breach his, the lawyer's, duty to the court. Since the new sections inserted by Clause 36 go on to state that the lawyer's duties override any other obligation, it must follow that either the lawyer has to refuse to follow the instructions or cease to continue acting in the case. If, however, the lawyer were to give way, and do something that was in breach of his duty to the court—the effect of the provision in Clause 36 is that it overrides everything else—then he, the lawyer, is to blame. He cannot turn round and blame his client. On the basis of that analysis, the amendment is misfocused and unnecessary. In effect, the lawyer must be able to resist. If he does not, it is the lawyer who is to blame and not the secondary party. Yet the effect of the amendments is to make the secondary party liable for contempt.
Less importantly, the amendment is also technically misconceived. It refers to a person who "ought reasonably to appreciate" that it is likely to bring about a breach of duty. But he is by definition a person who may well not know that his act will have that effect and he could only remain in ignorance through his lawyer's failure to enlighten him. That, again, would be the fault of the lawyer, yet this amendment creates a new offence for someone else.
As a matter of principle, I do not think it is acceptable to have an offence of this kind which consists of bringing about conduct by another person which is not in itself necessarily either a criminal offence or a contempt. Procuring or abetting a non-criminal action, or attempting to do so, should not be a crime.
I should reassure the Committee that, of course, cases in which a client or employer or anyone else attempts to interfere improperly in the processes of justice can already be punished as a contempt. They do not need a provision such as the one put forward by the amendment. Moreover, in the most serious cases, it may be appropriate to bring proceedings for perverting the course of justice or for attempting or conspiring to do so.
1226
I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I am partially reassured by what the noble Lord said. I shall read his remarks carefully in Hansard. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 288 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 289:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—

DUTY TO ADVISE CLIENT: SPECIALIST ADVOCACY
(" . In the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, after section 31C (inserted by section 33 above) insert—
"Duty to advisers to suitable advocate.
31D.—(1) A person exercising a right to conduct litigation must, in relation to any advocacy to be conducted in proceedings before a superior court of record, advise his client in writing as to whether or not that advocacy ought to be conducted by a person offering specialist advocacy on a referral basis.
(2) In considering that question, the person concerned must have regard, in particular, to—

(a) the relative cost to his client of obtaining advocacy services on a referral basis and of relevant alternative means of providing them; and

(b) the degree of skill and experience which the circumstances require of the advocate.

(3) Where, before the advocacy in question is conducted, a person fails to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) but he or his firm nevertheless conducts that advocacy, neither he nor his firm shall be entitled to charge the client for that advocacy.'"').
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to require solicitors and other litigators, when advising clients who need an advocate to represent them in court, to consider whether it would be appropriate to instruct an independent advocate to represent them and to advise the client accordingly. If all solicitors are to gain full rights of audience, then they must be required to exercise those rights in a situation of full and fair competition. The Bar is a referral profession of advocates, depending for its involvement in criminal and civil cases on instructions from solicitors.
What is essential, if the Bar is to survive as a strong and independent profession—which the noble and learned Lord indicated he wishes to see—is that competition from other advocates in the solicitors' profession is fair. How will that be guaranteed? When the 1990 Act was enacted, the Bar cautioned that solicitors in the first contact with lay clients would be likely to tie in lay clients to advocacy by solicitors within solicitors' firms, denying the lay clients the specialist advocacy which the lay clients needed and imposing on the lay clients the high cost of solicitor advocates. By "tying in" we do not mean simply a formal condition imposed by the solicitor that the client must use the firm's advocacy services.
We are also concerned about the risk of a more insidious approach by firms of solicitors who may establish a policy that, unless it suits the firm, the client

1227
will not be given an informed choice of advocate. Clients may not be advised that they ought to consider the alternative of instructing a barrister, that it may be cheaper to do so and that there are specialist barristers in the field who are skilled and experienced advocates.
I am aware that the Law Society's practice rules require solicitors to advise clients of the respective advantages and disadvantages of advocacy by in-house solicitors and by banisters, with particular reference to costs, specialist skills and expertise. In theory, therefore, there are rules designed to deal with those concerns.
I remain anxious, however, that in practice those rules are often ignored. Solicitors combining advocacy and the conduct of litigation have a strong incentive to persuade clients to use an in-house solicitor advocate, even when a banister advocate would be more economical or more suitable or both.
For that reason I believe it essential that the law should provide that litigators should give clients proper advice in writing about whether or not they should use an independent advocate. I believe that failure to provide such advice should result in the litigator not being paid for the advice. That would bite particularly in contentious matters where the existence of the advice could be verified on taxation of costs by the court. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This is an extraordinarily bold amendment. Unless I am very wrong, I see the footprints of my friends in the Bar Council all over this amendment.
The amendment has something in common with those proposed to Part I of the Bill, which would have required the legal services commission to keep under review whether the interests of justice required particular kinds of service to be provided by banisters. This amendment would go considerably further. Its effect, essentially, is to require solicitor advocates to advertise to their clients the availability of barristers in private practice. That really is an intriguing proposition.
Attempts have been made to justify such a proposition by reference to the existing "tying-in" provisions of Sections 104 to 106 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. These would prevent mortgage lenders from offering residential property loans as part of a package with other specified services—banking and financial services, estate agency services and conveyancing—without making it clear that the loan is separate from the provision of the services, and is available separately, and stating the price of the services offered. I say "these provisions would prevent", but they have not been brought into force. I understand that they are viewed as unworkable.
In any event, these existing tying-in provisions were designed to protect the public from paying inflated prices for mortgage loans, unaware that they were really paying for a package of ancillary services. Lenders are required to separate out any services they offer into their component parts and to price them separately. They are not required to advertise the services of their rivals.
1228
By contrast, this amendment is designed to protect the Bar, not the public. It does not require solicitors to specify in advance how much they would charge for any advocacy services. It could hardly do so without imposing the same burden on the Bar. Rather it imposes the requirement to advertise the availability of barristers in private practice.
The amendment relates only to the higher courts, where, I suppose, the interests of the Bar in retaining the work exclusively is greater. I think that by and large the sort of clients who would go to the big City firms to fight litigation in the higher courts through in-house lawyers would be able to look after themselves.
Another startling aspect of this amendment is the lack of reciprocity it provides for. I see no obligation on barristers to advertise the availability, expertise and relative costs of solicitor advocates, even in the increasing number of cases which are sent directly to a member of the Bar and not referred by a solicitor.
This amendment must be seen for what it is. It is one of several which, in various ways, have either attempted to guarantee work for the Bar or protect the position of the Bar. I do not think that it is appropriate for its work to be guaranteed, either by the Government or by statute. Barristers must stand on their own feet and meet the challenge presented by such new competition as this Bill will open up. I have every confidence in the Bar's ability to thrive in a more competitive environment. But it must thrive because of the excellence of the service that it provides and the competitive prices that it charges—not because areas of work have been reserved for barristers in private practice and obstacles put in the way of their competitors; and not because they have to oblige their solicitors to advertise the services of the Bar. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kingsland: The reply of the noble and learned Lord was uncharacteristically unsporting. The object of the amendment is not to give the Bar an unfair advantage but to ensure that there is fair competition for advocacy services. All it seeks to do—there may be other ways of doing it more effectively and less offensively—is to ensure that when a client decides that he requires an advocate on the balance of quality and price he receives the best service that is available.
There will be circumstances in which solicitors' firms will be inclined to bias matters unfairly in favour of in-house advocates. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has a central objective in making these new rules; namely, to ensure that there is fair competition to provide the general public with a quality service at a reasonable price. Whatever the noble and learned Lord thinks about the wording of the amendment I hope that he will reflect upon its background. I look forward to seeing his own drafting efforts at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 290:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—

GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR: SUBSCRIPTIONS
(" .—(1) It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary, it shall be lawful for the General Council of the Bar (in this section referred to as "the Council") to make rules or regulations (in this section referred to as "subscription regulations") requiring any person who acts or intends to act as a barrister to pay to the Council such subscription as the Council may require.
(2) A person who has been called to the Bar by an Inn of Court shall, if he would not otherwise be taken to be acting as a barrister, be taken for the purposes of this section to be so acting if he is (with or without others)—

(a) supplying or offering to supply legal services to the public or a section of the public;

(b) whilst acting in the course of any employment, supplying legal services—

(i) to his employer,

(ii) to another employee of his employer,

(iii) where his employer is an association, to any member of that association, or

(iv) where his employer is supplying or offering to supply services to the public or a section of the public, to any customer or client of his employer;

(c) exercising or seeking to exercise any right of audience granted by the Council;

(d) employed as an advocate within the meaning of section 31A(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, but subject to section 31A of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, subscription regulations may—

(a) impose different requirements—

(i) for persons who have been called to the Bar for different periods of time, or

(ii) for persons seeking to act as barristers in different modes or forms of practice;

(b) provide that failure to pay the whole or any part of any subscription required to be paid by a person who acts or intends to act as a barrister shall—

(i) constitute professional misconduct, and

(ii) entitle the Council to take such steps as it thinks appropriate with a view to that person being disbarred, or temporarily suspended from practice, by order of an Inn of Court.

(4) Where a person who acts or intends to act as a barrister has failed to pay the whole or any part of any subscription required to be paid by him in accordance with subscription regulations the unpaid part thereof shall be recoverable by the Council by action in the County Court as if the same were a debt owing by that person to the Council.").
The noble Lord said: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at the beginning of his reply to the previous amendment that he detected the footprints of the Bar Council all over it. The noble and learned Lord may note exactly the same footprints on this amendment. He would be absolutely right, but the amendment is none the worse for that. The purpose of the amendment is to put the Bar Council on the same footing as the Law Society and the Council of Licensed Conveyancers. The Law Society can require anyone who wishes to conduct litigation or advocacy as a solicitor to pay a fee for the issue of a practising certificate under Section 11 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The fee is not confined to a sum that covers the
1230
administrative cost of issuing the certificate. Section 11 specifically provides that it can be used for the general purposes of the society. Under Section 14 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 the Council of Licensed Conveyancers is entitled to charge fees for the issue of an annual licence to practise. I am not sure about ILEX which is not a statutory body, but it may well have power to charge an annual fee to members by way of a contract between itself and those members.
The Bar Council cannot under the present law charge fees. About 10 per cent. of barristers in independent practice do not pay the fees requested by the Bar Council. The reason why that body is unable to charge fees is purely historic. Entry to the Bar was governed by the Inns of Court long before the Bar Council existed. The Inns rather than the Bar Council were the bodies who provided qualifications for entry and for a long time were responsible for the discipline of members of the Bar. Certainly for a very long time the Law Society—I am not sure about its early history—has had statutory responsibility for admission to the roll of solicitors, the issue of practising certificates and the discipline of members of the profession. Those are all public functions.
For members of the Bar, the equivalent functions have now very largely passed from the Inns of Court to the Bar Council. Although the Inns formally call members to the Bar, rules about the education and training needed to qualify for practice are made by the Bar Council. The Bar Council is responsible through its professional conduct committee for the discipline of barristers and making and altering the Bar's code of conduct. The Bar Council can and does require any barrister in independent practice to pay a premium for professional negligence insurance to the Bar's own mutual insurance company, of which I was for some years a director. None of that money goes back to the Bar Council.
The Bar Council, like the Law Society, is an authorised body under the Courts and Legal Services Act. As such an authorised body, it has public functions. For the performance of those functions it requires money. The Bar Council performs some trade union functions on behalf of the Bar, as does the Law Society on behalf of the solicitors' branch of the profession. That is not inconsistent with a requirement of the payment of fees as a condition of the right to practise.
The Bar Council has been and will increasingly be handicapped by the fact that it cannot compel payment of charges from its members for the public services that it provides. It is anomalous that it cannot require payment of its own charges, while it can require payment of premiums to its insurance company. It is anomalous that it cannot require payment of fees when the Law Society and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers can. I believe that the time has come to remedy those anomalies and to give the Bar Council power to charge fees for members wishing to exercise rights of litigation or rights of audience. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: I wish to support this amendment. As a member of the Bar for some 15 years, who always paid his dues to the Bar Council, and as a solicitor of

1231
the Supreme Court for the ensuing years of my 35 years of practice, I have been under statutory obligation, but nonetheless I have been willing to pay the fees.
The position has greatly changed since I was called to the Bar in 1963 when the Inns of Court exercised all sorts of jurisdiction over discipline, education and so forth. The Bar Council is now in a position almost akin to the Law Society. The only question I would raise is whether it is necessary. If it is necessary to put such a matter into the statute, clearly it is right that the Bar Council should have the right to collect fees for the public services that it provides in education, training and so forth.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should add that the Bar Council, as I understand it, has been advised that it has no power to charge fees, to take disciplinary proceedings or to take any other action against members who do not pay its charges.
The Lord Chancellor: Your Lordships have heard the eloquent speeches made by the Bar Council's many able advocates in this House and outside it, in which they have protested how unreasonable, how unconscionable, how unconstitutional it is for the Government to have dared to promote legislation interfering with rights of audience, and how this threatens the fragile independence of the Bar and risks tumbling our entire constitutional settlement around our ears. We had 60 minutes' worth of it when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, opposed that Clause 31 stand part of the Bill.
At least, that is the argument when the Bar thinks that its privileges arising from its rights of audience are under threat. How interesting it is to see the position when the boot is on the other foot. The delicate subject of how the Bar can force its recalcitrant members to pay their subscriptions is one on which, as a Member of the Government, far less as Lord Chancellor, I would hardly dared to have ventured an opinion, but for this amendment. This question is apparently not so intimately connected with the Bar's traditions of independence and self-regulation that it would not benefit from parliamentary intervention.
The reason such an amendment is desired is that in 1990 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, sitting in the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal, decided that Bar rules purporting to make the non-payment of subscriptions a matter of misconduct were ultra vires and unenforceable. Subsequently, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges refused an application under the 1990 Act to approve changes in the Bar's rules designed to re-introduce compulsory subscriptions. They did so on the grounds that the Bar Council had no power to make or enforce such rules. That explains the reference in the amendment to,
"notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary".
As has already been pointed out, the Law Society is in effect already able to levy compulsory subscriptions by charging for the practising certificate which all practising solicitors must obtain. Therefore I do not
1232
consider that it is necessarily objectionable in principle for the Bar Council also to be able to levy compulsory subscriptions on practising barristers.
There are, however, difficulties. Both the Bar Council and the Law Society are hybrid bodies which combine regulatory functions with—they may not like the description—trade union functions. As the Committee will recall, the enforcement of trade union closed shops is contrary to the right of freedom of association which is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, newly incorporated, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was kind enough to recall, into our domestic law under a Bill which I had the privilege of introducing and carrying through this House. Compulsory adherence to a state regulatory body subject to public law is, however, permissible.
Although the Bar Council exercises certain statutory regulatory functions in respect of rights of audience under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, it is not a statutory body and its other functions are not statutory. In that it differs from the Law Society, which is the statutory regulatory body for the solicitors' profession, under the provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974.
Another difference between the two bodies is that while all practising solicitors are subject to regulation by the Law Society and must obtain and pay for practising certificates from the society, it is possible for them to opt out of membership of the society and out of its trade union functions. Some solicitors do this as a matter of principle or for their own reasons, even though membership is free to solicitors with a current practising certificate. No such option is available to barristers under the amendment which has been moved.
The fee which the Law Society can charge for a practising certificate is a statutory fee determined under Section 11 of the Solicitors Act by the Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice. I do not think that the Bar Council has proposed any similar mechanism in relation to its own fees.
There must also be other questions about the Bar Council's suitability to receive a compulsory levy from all banisters. As presently constituted, the Bar Council is, for example, very unrepresentative of employed barristers who make up a significant proportion of the profession as a whole. Some Members of the Committee may have read recently in the Lawyer the comments of Susan Ward, the chairman of the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry, when asked about this amendment. She said:
"BACFI doesn't have a problem with compulsory subscriptions, providing the Bar Council stops using subscription income to fund campaigns to denigrate employed and non-practising barristers, and starts looking after our interests".
I have some sympathy with her. I would need some persuasion that the Bar Council does a good job, or even seriously attempts to do a good job, of representing the many barristers who are not in private practice.
As drafted, the amendment would appear to require former barristers who have become solicitors, and those barristers who are regarded by the Bar as non-practising barristers and who can only provide those services

1233
which any member of the public can provide, to pay subscriptions to the Bar Council. I am moved to wonder what service they are to receive in return for their subscriptions.
To sum up, while I do not reject the principle of compulsory subscriptions to the Bar, I believe that all these difficulties and questions would need to be resolved before your Lordships would agree to an amendment of the kind that has been moved.
On a more encouraging note, my department is already discussing the issue with the Bar Council and I certainly undertake to consider it further and to consult interested parties and my colleagues in government. I hope that it will be possible to resolve the issue during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. However, I cannot undertake to return to the House on Report with a government amendment. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The Bar Council was seeking a change in the law by primary legislation to which, as I have pointed out on several occasions today, it has no objection. At this time of night I shall not seek to attempt to reply to the various points made by the noble and learned Lord, although there are replies to be made to a number of them. Having regard to his comment about the possibility of further action being taken before the Bill is enacted and takes it final form, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation: amendments]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 290A:
Page 72, line 34, leave out from ("for") to end of line 37 and insert ("the words from ", the Lord Chief Justice" to the end substitute "approves any regulation such as is mentioned in subsection (1), the requirement of the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls imposed by that subsection shall not apply.'").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments are minor drafting amendments to Schedule 6. The first two are made at the request of my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls who I am glad to see in his place. They are somewhat technical in nature, and concern rules of the Law Society which require concurrence by certain members of the judiciary under the Solicitors Act 1974. Most of these rules will also require approval under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
Clearly it is not in anyone's interest that the same rule should have to be approved twice under two different Acts, and so the principle which applies is that when a rule has been approved under the 1990 Act it is deemed also to have been concurred to under the 1974 Act. This principle is currently enacted in Sections 2(4) and 31(3) of the Solicitors Act, as amended by the Courts and Legal Services Act.
Section 2 of the Solicitors Act relates to education and training rules for solicitors. These require the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, which is deemed to have been given if the rule has been approved under the 1990 Act. Section 31 relates to practice rules, which require the concurrence only of the Master of the Rolls; this, too, is deemed to have been given if the rule has been approved under the 1990 Act.
Schedule 6 updates these provisions to reflect the fact that under the provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act, as amended by this Bill, rules will be approved by the Lord Chancellor alone, after considering the advice of the designated judges, and not by the Lord Chancellor and designated judges acting together. Schedule 6 currently provides that in these circumstances the Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls, or the Master of the Rolls alone, according to the type of rule, will be deemed to have concurred to the rule.
My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf suggested at the Second Reading debate that he would prefer not to be deemed to concur to a rule if he has not actually done so. That seems eminently sensible. Accordingly, Amendments Nos. 290A and 290B provide that where a rule has been approved under the 1990 Act, the requirement for concurrence under the 1974 Act shall not apply.
The last of this group of amendments, Amendment No. 291A, is another technical amendment which will correct the definition of a "right to conduct litigation" in Section 119 of the 1990 Act. That right is currently defined as the right:

"(a) to exercise all or any of the functions of issuing a writ or otherwise commencing proceedings before any court; and

(b) to perform any ancillary functions in relation to proceedings (such as entering appearances to actions)".

Paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 6 amends that definition to reflect the fact that it is possible to have rights which one cannot exercise. The relevant part of the new definition would therefore provide that a right to conduct litigation is the right to issue a writ or otherwise commence proceedings before any court. However, the Civil Procedure Rules 1999, which will come into force on 26th April this year, will abolish the commencement of proceedings by writ. This amendment therefore deletes that part of the definition to reflect the new state of affairs which will prevail by the time this Bill is passed, if Parliament chooses to pass it. I beg to move.
Lord Woolf: I merely wish to record my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for being so responsive to my sensitivities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 290B:
Page 72, leave out lines 40 to 42 and insert ("the words from "Master of the Rolls" to the end substitute "Lord Chancellor approves any rule such as is mentioned in subsection (1), the requirement of the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls imposed by that subsection shall not apply."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 291 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 291A:
Page 73, line 46, leave out ("a writ or otherwise commence").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Permission to appeal]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 292:
Page 21, line 16, after ("that") insert (", except in cases relating to the civil rights and safety of the person,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 294. The Opposition support in principle the introduction of an extension of the requirement for leave to appeal to discourage unmeritorious appeals which take up too much time of the courts and add to the costs of litigation, including for the ultimately successful party.
The success rate of appeals, particularly in the Court of Appeal, is significantly higher in circumstances where leave to appeal is currently required. Also, the present rules on leave to appeal are rather complex and difficult for the Court Service, let alone the parties, to understand. But there should be exceptions to the requirement for leave to appeal because, inevitably, that adds an extra step and takes time, especially if leave is not immediately given by the trial judge and a separate application must be made at a later stage to that judge or a more senior judge.
The only exception to the universal requirement of leave to appeal on the face of the Bill is in relation to criminal cases. But the liberty and safety of individuals and their ability to exercise their civil rights, such as freedom of movement and freedom of expression, are issues in many civil cases such as those involving asylum seekers, domestic violence or harassment injunctions. The universal requirement for leave to appeal may also not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I accept that it is not appropriate in primary legislation to include in great detail all the specific categories of case for which an automatic right to appeal should be permitted. But at least the basic principles should be enshrined therein.
Amendment No. 294 would enable a party wishing to appeal a decision who was refused permission to appeal by the first instance judge to renew the appeal before the Court of Appeal. In many cases, the parties, especially those involved in lower value claims or litigants in person, will need a little time to reflect on the outcome of the trial and the first instance judgment before deciding whether an appeal is merited. Frequently it is simply not practical to apply to the trial judge after the event, especially on circuit where the judge may not be at that court until some weeks or even some months later. There will also be a few cases where the first instance judge may be reluctant or unwilling to give permission for an appeal, even when this would be the right course of action, because it could be seen to reflect adversely on his abilities.
A very important function of the Court of Appeal is to take an overview of the justice system and decide points of principle and resolve test cases. If the automatic right to appeal is to be significantly restricted it is vital that decisions granting permission to appeal should not remain the province only of the first instance judges. Losing parties should have the right to appeal for leave directly to the Court of Appeal. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Two of the amendments in this group are in my name, Amendments No. 293 and 295. Speaking first to Amendment No. 293, there should clearly be an absolute right of appeal against the deprivation of liberty. I have to assume that the absence therefore of any reference to an automatic right of appeal where there has been a committal to prison for contempt of court is an oversight. If not, that is a point that should certainly be re-considered urgently.
Amendment No.295 raises a different point which is somewhat akin to that raised in Amendment No.294. It is that there should always be someone other than the judge who decided the case who can give leave to appeal. The judge who decided the case should of course be entitled to give leave but, if he or she refuses it, there must be some other judge to whom a further application for leave can be made. I remember one judge, now dead—indeed he was a former head of my chambers—who never suffered the slightest doubt about the correctness of his decisions. It was therefore very difficult to extract from him leave to appeal in cases where leave was needed, but counsel in such a case could always go to the Court of Appeal to get leave. It is surely wrong that one person should both make the decision and then have the sole power to decide whether leave to appeal from that decision should be given.
Lord Woolf?: Perhaps I may say just a few words about the provisions of Clause 38. As the Committee will appreciate, the provisions of this part of the Bill are largely derived from the Bowman Report. The purpose of the Bowman Report was to ensure that the Court of Appeal could provide a service in the interests of justice which met the needs of litigants more efficiently and effectively than it does at present.
The present amendment deals with Clause 38. I would draw attention to the fact that this is to be subject to the rules of court. As the Committee will again be aware, there is a Rules Committee, of which I have to confess I am chairman, which looks at these matters with great independence and care. In practice that committee is best able to judge what restrictions should be made with regard to the general requirement of leave to appeal.
In principle I am not concerned about the amendments which are proposed except for Amendment No. 292. If the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would forgive me for doing so, I would suggest that the wording he is proposing there is dangerously wide. Some litigants would say that whenever they come to court they are exercising their civil rights. Safety of the person is also a worrying requirement. Some would say that every Factories Act case involves the safety of the person. It seems to me that that proposal would drive the proverbial coach and horses through what is being

1237
proposed. I would urge that, rather than put that restriction on the Rules Committee, your Lordships should have confidence that it would of course protect such things as the liberty of the subject, which I think is probably what the amendment is designed to protect.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There are four amendments in this group and they all relate to Clause 38. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, the purpose of Clause 38 is to introduce a rule-making power which can be used to provide that permission must be granted before an appeal can proceed in the county courts, the High Court or the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. Perhaps I can deal with each amendment shortly.
First, Amendment No. 292 purports to make an exception for the rule-making power to apply to,"
"cases relating to the civil rights and safety of the person".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made the point much more eloquently than I could about the extraordinary width and therefore the propensity for confusion that comes from the proposed amendment. It would give rise to difficulties for both practitioners and judges in establishing whether or not leave would be required. Sir Jeffrey Bowman, whose review team the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to in his short remarks—the exact words include,
"examine the workings of the Court of Appeal"
and whose report forms the basis for Clause 38, recommended that there should be a leave requirement for virtually all cases, in part because of the propensity for confusion and difficulty among practitioners as to which cases do and which cases do not require leave. Also, if we included such a provision—again for the reasons indicated by the noble and learned Lord—such an amendment would seriously detract from the aim of Clause 38 because it would bring in so many cases.
The purpose of a requirement for permission is to provide a filter to ensure that only those cases where there are justifiable reasons for questioning the first instance decision are able to proceed to an appeal. Weak appeals not only take up valuable court time, but also delay a litigant from receiving the benefit of any judgment to which he or she is entitled. The fact that a case falls into a specific category does not in itself guarantee that the appeal is a meritorious one. That is why it is vital to introduce a rule-making power which will allow a requirement for permission to appeal to be introduced at all levels of the court system. I should make it clear that I believe that there are certain restricted circumstances where it is important for a right of appeal to be automatic.
Amendment No. 293 deals with the position in relation to appeals against orders of committal for contempt of court. In a consultation paper which the Lord Chancellor issued on extending the requirement for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, he proposed that there should continue to be an automatic right of appeal in cases where the liberty of the individual was at stake—this was also referred to by the noble and learned Lord. Following
1238
the consultation exercise, rules were introduced on 1st January of this year to provide that permission would be required for all appeals to the Court of Appeal, with the exception of appeals against the making of a committal order, against a refusal to grant habeas corpus or against an order for secure accommodation under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989—all provisions which relate to the liberty of the subject.
In the consultation paper which the Lord Chancellor issued on the proposals before the Committee, he indicated that the requirement for permission to appeal should be extended to cover all types of cases in the High Court and county courts, with the exception of appeals in cases involving the loss of an appellant's liberty. However, there may well be other areas which it would be advisable to exempt from requiring permission to appeal. I understand the concern, for example, that in some interlocutory orders a requirement for permission may result in unnecessary delay because in the time it takes for a judge to hear the application for permission, he or she might just as easily consider the substantive appeal.
In my view, the listing of such exceptions is best suited to Rules of Court rather than to an Act of Parliament. It is for that reason that I resist the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford. The effect of the amendment has already been achieved within the Court of Appeal through the Rules of Court. It is the Lord Chancellor's intention to replicate the situation in the lower courts. Provisions describing when permission is required have hitherto been dealt with by rule, and I see no reason why that should not continue to be the case.
I turn to Amendment No. 294. I entirely agree the principle that where a court which has made a first instance decision refuses an application for permission to appeal that decision, it should be possible for a litigant to renew his application to a higher level of judge. However, the appropriate venue for consideration of that application is the tier of court which will actually hear the appeal if the application is successful. Under the proposed reforms, this will not necessarily be the Court of Appeal.
The effect of the proposed reforms to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal will be that some appeals previously determined by that court will be determined by the lower courts. That reflects the need for proportionality in our appellate system.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, these proposals came about following the Bowman Review, which was commissioned by the noble and learned the Lord Chancellor's predecessor—who I see in his place—against the background of an increasing number of applications and appeals and consequent delays in the hearing of appeals. The review team concluded that the Court of Appeal was being asked to deal with cases which were not sufficiently weighty or complex to require the attention of the country's most senior judiciary. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor therefore sought to include proposals in the Bill to enable him to draw away from the Court of Appeal those cases which do not need to be heard there.
I shall give an example. Currently, virtually all appeals from a circuit judge lie to the Court of Appeal. If an application for permission made to the court of first

1239
instance were to be refused, it would be renewable to the Court of Appeal. Under the new system, cases in the new fast track, heard at first instance by a circuit judge, would be appealable to a High Court judge. In these circumstances, where an application for permission is refused by the court of first instance, any renewed application would fall to be considered by the appellate court, that is, the High Court.
The effect of Amendment No. 294 would be to require every application for leave to appeal which is refused at level one, to be renewed to the Court of Appeal, which obviously is not in line with the proposals in relation to the new appeal system.

I should stress, however, that provisions are included in the Bill which will ensure that those cases which do merit the consideration of the Court of Appeal are able to reach that court. That might be by way of a second appeal to that court under Clause 39.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 295, which I think I have already dealt with. This amendment provides that rules made in pursuance of subsection (3)(b) may not provide that permission may be given only by the court which made the decision or order from which permission to appeal is sought. Once the principle is accepted that if leave is refused at tier one the application can be renewed to tier two, the point made in Amendment No. 295 is dealt with.
In those circumstances, I believe that every one of the points raised is adequately dealt with under the existing system. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, replies, perhaps I may say that I am a little disappointed that it is not on the face of the Bill that there will be an automatic right of appeal in non-criminal proceedings which involve the liberty of the subject. However, I do not propose to press the amendment further. In saying that, I have regard to the fact that I strongly suspect that any change in the rules, which deprived anybody of existing rights in such a case to make an appeal could well be contrary to the European Convention.
Lord Kingsland: I give the noble and learned Lord at least five out of 10 for his spirited response. I thank him very much indeed for the way he replied. I should like to reflect on what he said and perhaps come back on Report with some renewed amendments which will seek to reflect more accurately the underlying philosophy which he explained so well. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 293 to 295 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Second appeals]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 295A:
Page 22, line 5, leave out from ("and") to ("no") in line 6 and insert ("if that first appeal is unsuccessful,").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Meston has asked that I say a few words in his stead as he was unfortunately taken ill this afternoon. In moving this amendment, I should point out that I shall speak also to Amendment No. 295B. My noble friend's amendment deals with the situation of a second appeal, which is being made by the party who won at first instance. Clause 39, as drawn, makes no distinction between the appellant for whom it is the first appeal and the appellant for whom it is the second appeal; namely, the appellant who won at first instance and wishes to appeal against the success of his opponent in the first appeal and, on the other hand, the party who failed at first instance, failed on appeal and then seeks a second appeal. We believe that there is reason and justice in making a distinction between the two cases. It is for that purpose that Amendment No. 295A proposes to insert the words,
"if that first appeal is unsuccessful".
Perhaps I may move on to Amendment No. 295B. It is designed to mitigate what we think is perhaps an unnecessary rigor in requiring as the alternative test to be satisfied, if there is to be a second appeal, the requirement that some "special reason" should be relevant to the case. We believe that it would be adequate if the test were that "there is sufficient reason". It is simply a question of finding a fair balance between the need, on the one hand, to control second appeals and, on the other, not to be too harsh in allowing that prospect. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: When I observed the term "special reason", my mind went right back to special reasons in relation to suspensions of licences or disqualifications in driving cases. There is a risk that a new body of jurisprudence could be collected around this term. I am not totally convinced that the word "sufficient" is right, but I invite my noble and learned friend to give consideration to a suitable substitute for "special reason". I really do have some anxiety about that term.
That was the point I was proposing to make in debating the Question of whether Clause 39 should stand part of the Bill. Therefore, provided that my noble and learned friend is as flexible as he has shown himself to be throughout most of our proceedings on the Bill—leaving aside some of my amendments which he has rejected and where he has shown a degree of inflexibility—I do not think that I need to revisit such matters at this point. Nevertheless, I await with interest to hear what either of my noble and learned friends have to say in response.
Lord Kingsland: I am speaking to Amendment No. 296, which is included in this group. My amendment would enable the Court of Appeal to be the final arbiter as to whether an appeal in a particular case should exceptionally be permitted to lie to more than one level of court. Clause 39 would limit appeals to one bite of the cherry only, unless the case fell in on the exceptions outlined in either paragraph (a) or (b); that is to say, either the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, or there is some other special reason for the appeal to be made. This would mean that generally, even where leave to appeal is granted, an appeal from a district judge would only be heard by a circuit judge and an appeal from a High Court master would lie only to a High Court

1241
judge. In both cases there would be no second appeal to the High Court in the first instance or to the Court of Appeal in the second instance.
While in many cases one level of appeal is certainly sufficient, the most appropriate judge to hear that appeal may not always be the next, most senior, in the system. That will particularly be the case following the introduction of the civil justice reforms this spring, because the district judges in the county courts will be responsible for the case management and trials of the lower value claims to be allocated under the new fast track. Circuit judges are likely to have limited experience of the day-to-day operation of the very new civil procedure rules. Therefore restricting a party's right of appeal to a district judge's decision—perhaps on such a vital matter as to whether the claim might be struck out to a circuit judge, who may be primarily a criminal law specialist—and preventing any further appeal either to the High Court or the Court of Appeal could lead to substantial injustice.
One of the important tasks of the Court of Appeal is to take an overview of the justice system and to decide test cases and other cases which clarify or expand the law. It is the Court of Appeal therefore that is best placed to take decisions on key issues arising from the implementation of the civil justice reforms. Therefore parties should have the right to invite the Court of Appeal to decide whether their case should be restricted to only one level of appeal, and which court should hear that appeal.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Woolf: The statements which have been made by Members of the Committee with regard to Clause 39 are ones with which I have considerable sympathy and understanding. Indeed with regard to the use of the word "special" I must, on behalf of the Bowman Committee, of which I was a member, plead guilty because we recommended that the word "special" should be inserted.
I am afraid it may be too long a time since I myself had the responsibility of urging special reasons before a magistrates' court. But the word "exceptional" appeared in a recent Act of Parliament, the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which provided that in certain circumstances an individual could be subjected to life sentences unless there were exceptional circumstances. At the end of last year the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice had to deal with that phrase. The fears that have been expressed tonight were certainly confirmed by the judgment in that case. It is interesting to note that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice used the word "special" in substitution for "exceptional" in describing, as far as he could, what was meant by "exceptional". That seems to me to underline the danger referred to.
It is always difficult to decide what is the appropriate reason. The Court of Appeal judges have given some consideration to this matter and what we would offer to the Committee as a suitable substitute is the word "compelling". With regard to the whole purpose of the second appeal provision in Clause 39, the position at
1242
present is that if a case is decided by a district judge, one has two rights of appeal. One has first of all a right of appeal to a Court of Appeal judge, which is a rehearing—the whole case is tried over again in other words—and then one can go to the Court of Appeal.
The reason for Clause 39 is to limit the cases which can come to the Court of Appeal to the ones which my noble friend Lord Kingsland had in mind—to which he referred—that is, ones where the Court of Appeal could exercise its function of first of all dealing with important points of principle and practice and also acting as a safety valve so as to ensure that no compelling injustice, as I would say, was done. I hope that in considering whether to accept the proposed amendments, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take into account those considerations.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 39 enshrines the principle put forward by Sir Jeffery Bowman's review team: that, broadly, there should be only one level of appeal. It also enshrines the principle outlined in the Bowman Review that there should be some exceptions to that. It encapsulates the exceptions as being: unless the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice; or, that there is some other special reason for the appeal to be made.
These three amendments seek to amend the circumstances in which there may be a second appeal. The first, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but argued very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, suggests that a matter should only be limited to one level of appeal where the first appeal upholds the decision of the court of first instance. The effect of the amendment would be that if it overturned the decision of the first court, the matter would be free from the restriction of one appeal only.
With great respect, we are not attracted to that suggestion. We do not believe that our justice system should be predicated on the assumption that the decisions of the lower courts are wrong. When an application for permission to appeal is granted, the assumption should be that the Appeal Court has rightly confirmed or corrected the decision of the first instance court. Where a flawed decision at first instance is clearly put right on appeal, a further appeal would not be appropriate. Therefore, an overturned decision should not in itself provide a statutory exemption to the principle of one level of appeal. I accept that provision needs to be made for those cases where, for example, it would appear that an appeal court has reached an incorrect decision.
The second suggested amendment, Amendment No. 295B, deals with the word "special". It is proposed that the word "special" in sub-paragraph (b) should be replaced with the word "sufficient". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has indicated that he also has concerns over the use of the word "special". He suggests that we use the word "compelling".
At the present time, the Lord Chancellor is attracted to the substitution of the word "special" with the word "compelling". He considers that it provides an appropriate indication of the circumstances in which

1243
there should be a further appeal. It would ensure that, where the individual circumstances of a case merit the consideration of the Court of Appeal in the way described, it will be possible for it to proceed further, regardless of whether the Appeal Court has overturned or upheld the first instance decision. In my view, that addresses the concerns reflected in Amendment No. 295A.
The effect of Amendment No. 296 is to provide that, where a party wishes to appeal a case that has already been through one appeal, he is able to apply to the Court of Appeal for that court to decide whether or not the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, or whether there is some other special reason for the appeal to be made.
It has always been my intention that, where a party seeks permission for a second appeal, the application should be made to the Court of Appeal. I intended that that should be provided for by use of the rule-making power set out in Clause 38(3)(b). The Lord Chancellor is, however, prepared to consider whether there might be a case for specifying that in primary legislation.
In conclusion, I urge the Committee to resist Amendment No. 295A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. However, if the noble Lord is willing to withdraw Amendment No. 295B, the Lord Chancellor will undertake to return to him on this point when we report back to the House. Similarly, if the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is willing to withdraw his amendment, the Lord Chancellor will consider whether he can put forward an amendment which will achieve its aim. On that optimistic note, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and am perfectly content for the matter to proceed on that basis. I thus beg leave to withdraw this amendment and shall not move Amendment No. 295B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 295B and 296 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Power to prescribe alternative destination]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 296A:
Page 22, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—

("(c) the President of the Family Division, and

(d) the Vice-Chancellor.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 297, but the noble and learned Lord has spoken only to Amendment No. 296A.
I am grateful to him for proposing the amendment. It simply seeks to ensure that the correct order of precedence of the Heads of Division is reflected in Clause 40. That is in accordance with the order of
1244
precedence set out in Section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. I am happy, without saying more, to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 43 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 297:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause
("Vice-President of the Queen's Bench Division

VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
. After section 5(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (Divisions of High Court) insert—
"(1A) The Lord Chancellor may appoint one of the ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal as Vice-President of the Queen's Bench Division, and a judge so appointed shall he a judge of that Division.'').
The noble and learned Lord said: In these days the work of the Lord Chief Justice of England is a heavy burden. When my noble and learned friend Lord Lane was Lord Chief Justice he sought the assistance of Lord Justice Tasker Watkins over the whole field of his activities. After some negotiation, we were able to propose an arrangement under which Lord Justice Watkins became the Deputy Chief Justice.
When my late learned friend Lord Taylor of Gosforth became Chief Justice he felt that the arrangements were a little lacking in flexibility. He wished to have somewhat different arrangements. In particular, he wished Lord Justice Kennedy to assist him in the disposition of the Queen's Bench Division judges. That is a major task because, as the Committee knows and as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, explained to us the other day in answer to the point about returns, one can never be sure how long cases will last. Therefore, we need to have someone on hand to ensure, so far as possible, that there is a judge available for the next case when a problem arises.
When my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill became Lord Chief Justice, it was the understanding that he would be willing to sit in all the jurisdictions which the Lord Chief Justice can occupy; namely, the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal—to which he was no stranger, having been the Master of the Rolls—as well as the Divisional Court, and sitting in the Crown Court at first instance from time to time. That was just to get the sense of what happens at the trial level. One thing that tends to happen as one gets older and is promoted in the English system and goes to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division is that one gets less sense of what is going on in trials.
In passing, I must say that the Scottish system ensures for the most part that even the most senior judges have to preside at trials. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will confirm that. It means that the judgments of the Court of Appeal on criminal matters in Scotland are closely related to the circumstances of the time.
The result was that my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham felt that there was scope for appointing one of the Court of Appeal judges to be vice-president of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. There is a statutory provision for that in the Supreme Court Act and he appointed Lord Justice Rose, who now specialises in criminal matters and sometimes spends time in the Divisional Court. However, his main work is in the Criminal Division. That appears to me to be satisfactory.
On the other hand, there was no statutory place for Lord Justice Kennedy, but it was agreed, when I was still in office and the new Lord Chief Justice was appointed, that Lord Justice Kennedy would be de facto the vice-president of the Queen's Bench Division. When a suitable opportunity arises, as I believe it now has, I suggest that it should be made a statutory provision.
I have simply used the terms at present in place for the vice-president of the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal and applied them here. I understand that there may be further refinements required to make the amendment absolutely in accordance with the high standards of drafting which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor requires. But in the meantime, the principle is clear enough. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: It is of course only appropriate that my noble and learned predecessor should call the Committee's attention to the matters in which the Scots judges are so much better informed.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the purpose of his amendment is to empower the Lord Chancellor to appoint one of the judges of the Court of Appeal to act as Vice-President of the Queen's Bench Division. As the noble and learned Lord has explained, this would give formal recognition to an informal practice of several years' standing by which one of the Lords Justices gives the Lord Chief Justice support with the judicial administration of the division—and certainly such support is required.
I am happy to accept this amendment in principle because I too believe that these informal appointments should have statutory underpinning at the earliest opportunity.
The noble and learned Lord knows that his amendment is insufficient—I would not dare to say technically defective—in that a number of consequential changes are also required. For example, because the office is to be held by a member of the Court of Appeal, it will be necessary to amend the Supreme Court Act to add the Vice-President of the Queen's Bench Division to the list of members of the High Court. We shall also need to amend the long title of the Bill.
However, if the noble and learned Lord is content to withdraw his amendment, he can be assured that I will bring forward amendments at Report stage to achieve the intended effect.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am of course entirely content to withdraw this amendment in order that the
1246
technical support for it can be forthcoming. I should have said that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice also supports this amendment, as is manifest from his name on the Marshalled List. I am very content and thank the Lord Chancellor for supporting the principle of this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 44 to 48 agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 298:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
("Alteration of listing

COMPENSATION FOR UNREASONABLE ALTERATION IN TIME AND DATE OF HEARING
. Where a civil court has allocated a fixed time and date for a hearing or trial, but fails in the event to honour that commitment, without giving reasonable prior notice to the parties, the Court Service shall compensate the parties for any time and costs which have been wasted.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would require the court service to pay compensation for wasted costs to the parties in a civil action who attend for a fixed trial or hearing which is ineffective or delayed because of a failure of the court service.
The civil justice reforms masterminded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which will be introduced in April this year, aim to reduce the cost and complexity of most civil proceedings. One particularly welcome innovation of the reforms is the intention that the courts will fix trial dates and starting times for trials much earlier in all proceedings in order to give the parties a timetable to work to. The new court rules will only allow these fixed trial dates to be postponed in strictly limited circumstances. This praiseworthy aim is to prevent unwarranted delays and slippages in preparing trials.
In lower value claims, which will be allocated to the new fast track in the county court, trial dates are to be fixed about 30 weeks after the defence is filed. This will cut the present average time for the conclusion of county court cases by some 50 per cent.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, also proposed that the legal costs which the winning party can recover from the losing party in these lower value claims should be fixed. This would enable a party, before beginning litigation, to have greater certainty about the costs he might have to bear if the claim does not succeed.
As the first stage of implementing the noble and learned Lord's recommendations, the fixed costs of advocacy at the trial are being introduced in April this year. This initiative is thought to be feasible because it is intended that fast-track cases will be scheduled for no more than one calendar day.
But there are serious concerns about whether or not the courts will be able to keep to definite trial dates and times. Only very limited additional resources are being allocated to the court service to implement the most significant reforms to the civil justice system for 100 years. No more full-time judges are being

1247
appointed and the technology needed to enable the courts to case manage and monitor actions will not be introduced until the year 2000 at the earliest.
Under the present system the courts tend to list several cases to be heard on the same day at the same time and before the same judge on the assumption that many of them will settle before the day arrives. In addition, the county courts in particular will list other appointments for the judge at 10 or 10.30 a.m. to sort out more urgent matters which have to be disposed of before starting to hear the day's trial. Quite frequently this means that a trial does not begin until noon or even the beginning of the afternoon, and if some of the cases listed for that day do not settle some trials have to be postponed. It is not always possible for courts to give parties notice of the likelihood of postponement but the present practice is that compensation will be paid to parties on an ex gratia basis if there have been errors in listing that amount to maladministration.
Without additional resources it will be very difficult for the court service sufficiently to change its established practices to ensure that even most of the fast track fixed date and time trials take place. But if the parties arrive at court with their full teams, which may include solicitor, counsel, witnesses of fact and sometimes expert witnesses, and the trial cannot start until later that day or at all substantial additional costs will be incurred which, under the new system, cannot be recovered even by the successful party because of the introduction of fixed trial costs. That will be unfair and will create uncertainty in a system that is designed to be streamlined, efficient and, above all, transparent.
I hope that the courts will be able to deliver fixed date and time fast track trials. If they cannot a system needs to be in place to provide proper compensation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recommended this in his report Access to Justice in 1996 and the Civil Procedure Rules Committee responsible for drawing up the detail of the reforms to be implemented in April has made a similar recommendation. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may put one question to the noble Lord. Does not the amendment place too draconian a burden on the courts? The amendment does not provide that if the court is unable to take account of the situation that has arisen it shall be exempt from the duty. A judge may fall ill or an accident may occur. There may be circumstances of that kind over which the court has no control.
Lord Kingsland: There may indeed be circumstances that will excuse the court service from making such a payment. I have tabled this amendment and it is for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to react to it and say to what extent he believes it is appropriate, requires modification or is at all relevant. I believe it right to start with the principle that if the court service is at fault in circumstances where a date and time has
1248
been fixed it is proper that the parties should be compensated in view of the new cost system laid down in the fast track proposals.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord puts the amendment on the basis that if the court is at fault it should pay. That is not the way the amendment is currently drafted. The amendment reads:
"Where a civil court has allocated a fixed time and date for a hearing or trial, but fails in the event to honour that commitment, without giving reasonable prior notice to the parties, the Court Service shall compensate the parties for any time and costs which have been wasted".
The noble Lord knows all too well that one of the major reasons why dates are lost when the parties turn up at court is because the cases listed before them overrun. Cases frequently overrun because the parties give inaccurate time estimates. That is not the fault of the court. Yet, on the basis of the amendment, compensation must be paid.
That is not simply a technical point. Practitioners know only too well that cases overrun, and it happens with the best will in the world on the part of the judges, the parties and the lawyers. It inevitably dislocates following business. The effect of the amendment would be either over-cautious listing, leading to longer waiting times and poor use of judicial time, or an increase in the amount of compensation paid. Both points will lead to an increase in the cost of running the civil courts, and that, in its turn, will he reflected in the fees.
Ultimately, listing is a judicial matter. Court service staff act under guidelines agreed with the local judiciary and seek judicial advice when listing difficulties arise.
However, where there has been a clear error on the part of staff which is separate from any judicial direction, in practice the Lord Chancellor's Department pays compensation. The parties involved are compensated for any costs that they have incurred unnecessarily. That is what happens now. The total compensation paid in 1997/98 was about £500,000. Dealing with such issues is not a matter appropriate to legislation. They are administration matters.
Under the civil justice reforms, which shall be introduced in April, the courts will rely to a large extent on information given by the parties in determining how to list business. The proposed amendment will make the court service liable for inaccurate time estimates made by the parties. That cannot be right. That said, the court service has already indicated to the Law Society, the Bar Council and consumer groups that it will consider the impact of the civil justice reforms on the compensation arrangements. It met with representatives of those groups on 8th January, but, not surprisingly, the court service's consideration is not yet concluded.
In the light of my remarks, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I accept that the terms of my amendment may be said to be a little stark. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who remained stoically throughout this evening—sadly, he has just departed—recommended a system similar to the one that I am

1249

recommending. In those circumstances, I have drawn sufficient inspiration from the noble and learned Lord's reply to reconsider the matter and table it again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Commission areas.]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 299:
Page 25, leave out lines 29 and 30.
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 299, I also speak to the Question whether Clauses 50 and 51 and Schedule 7 shall stand part of the Bill.
The basic units of the magistrates' courts service are the benches made up of local people who deal with, and are aware of, local issues. Benches vary in size, geographical location and the type of workload which is predominantly dealt with. From large city courts comprised of over 400 magistrates to small rural courts made up of less than 20 justices, all share a sense of belonging to a community organisation dealing with local issues.
If petty sessional areas are not based upon discrete localities of optimum size, magistrates will not be in a position to determine the make-up of their benches' sitting patterns, choice of chairman and standard of justice. Large benches based on commission areas would run a risk of inconsistent sentencing and be placed in a position where they might be unaware of the ability of their colleagues when deciding whom to elect as a bench chairman. Magistrates may not wish to travel and would not be aware of local practices and procedures.
Benches are not tribunals. They, and not the magistrates' courts committees, are responsible for the organisation of court business. That encourages a deep understanding and co-operation with colleagues and legal advisors. Creating large petty sessional areas based upon regions rather than towns or cities would lead to a diminution of lay magistrates belonging to the community that they serve. I cannot see any discernible advantage in the benches being formed in such large units. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 299 would remove subsection (2) of the new Section 1 which Clause 49(1) is inserting in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 in place of Sections 1 and 2. That subsection provides the ability to specify commission areas by way of statutory instrument rather than as at present by primary legislation.
Commission areas provide the basis for the appointment of magistrates and the jurisdiction of cases. Historically, commission areas have aligned with magistrates' courts committee areas, allowing for magistrates and cases to be deployed effectively across an MCC area. However, unlike both MCC and petty sessions areas, where changes to boundaries are possible through secondary legislation, commission areas may only be changed in strictly prescribed circumstances by primary
1250
legislation. To facilitate greater alignment between criminal justice agency boundaries, in particular police and Crown Prosecution Service boundaries, the number of MCCs has reduced in recent years by a series of amalgamations so that the areas are more closely aligned with these boundaries. The result is a growing discrepancy between MCC and commission area boundaries, with some MCCs covering more than one commission area. The time taken to effect change by primary legislation undoubtedly causes difficulties for MCCs. They are being prevented from redrawing their internal boundaries to reflect the local character of the service. Difficulties will ensue.
The Government believe that constraints on the effective administration of the magistrates' courts service should be removed wherever possible. This clause would regulate the procedures for all proposed changes to magistrates' courts boundaries and remove the increasingly obsolete description of retained county and metropolitan county areas. In future, commission areas will be defined in secondary legislation, and boundaries may also be altered by secondary legislation. I assume we can all agree that unfortunately the reorganisation of local government will not come to an end with the end of this millennium. The important point is that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has seen no difficulty with this change. Changes will, of course, require consultation with the MCCs and magistrates affected. There will be parliamentary scrutiny of the orders made.
If an MCC is to operate effectively, it must be free to make decisions about its geographical structure, including the arrangements for commission areas and petty sessions areas.
These changes respond to difficulties faced by some magistrates' courts committees. Those committees want to make the best use of their magistrates and resources to improve service. Future changes in the service, continuing the modernisation of the courts, will be managed more easily and quickly. On that basis, I shall ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Lord said that he spoke also to his notice of intention to oppose Clause 50 stand part and, I believe, Clause 51 and Schedule 7, so he is asking for a rather wide-ranging reply. Perhaps I may answer on Clause 50, which has two parts.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the noble Lord turns to those clauses, will he perm it me to inquire what consultation arrangements would be available if statutory instruments are used to change these boundaries under the proposed clause?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have already said that the magistrates' courts committees would be consulted in detail before any order is proposed. Indeed, it will be not just the magistrates' courts committees but the magistrates themselves on the individual benches. So there would be opportunity for full consultation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Are there any statutory requirements to that effect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, but the noble Lord has my assurance, which is relevant to the interpretation of statute.
I return to the wider issue of Clause 50 to which the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, referred. The definition of petty sessions areas, which Clause 50 covers, in terms of commission areas allows a magistrates' court committee the freedom to decide the most appropriate and efficient petty sessions structure which best suits its local circumstances, free of the changing constraints of local government boundaries. Petty sessions areas will in future be specified in an order made by the Lord Chancellor. I must emphasise that there is no change in the procedure for reorganising petty sessions areas and MCCs will continue to be free, subject to statutory consultation procedures, to redraw their internal boundaries.
A further provision in Clause 50 removes the distinction between a petty sessions area and a petty sessional division, which exists only for the purposes of geographical identification and is no longer necessary with the changes in local government boundaries.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has widened the scope of his introduction of Amendment No. 299, but I hope that he will accept that the argument against it would justify his withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. It sounds benign, but I wish to consider whether to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 299A:
Page 27, line 44, leave out ("Schedule 7 (which makes amendments") and insert—
(" .—(1) The Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London shall not be justices of the peace unless appointed by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
(2) Schedule 7 (which contains other provisions").
The noble and learned Lord said: This clause and Schedule 7 complete the statutory changes needed as a consequence of the new approach to commission areas and petty sessions areas which we debated in connection with Clauses 49 and 50. The new material introduced by these amendments relates to the City of London.
Clause 57 will create a Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (GLMCA), merging the existing 22 magistrates' courts committees (MCCS) in London. The GLMCA will be responsible for the administration of all the magistrates' courts in the capital in place of the 22 responsible for their separate geographical areas. As well as having the ability to manage its workload and magistrates' courts more efficiently and reduce delay, a further benefit will be the capability, if the GLMCA so wishes, to apply to redraw the commission area boundaries. A commission denotes the geographical area
1252
within which summary offences may be tried and for which lay magistrates are appointed. Furthermore, the GLMCA will also be about to redraw its petty sessions area, just like any other MCC.
The Government's policy is that the GLMCA should have the same freedom as other MCCs in the rest of the country to move cases and magistrates to administer justice with maximum efficiency and to reduce delays. Flexibility to change commission areas will be an integral part of the policy. This policy stems from work done in the criminal justice system cross-cutting Comprehensive Spending Review.
The Bill's provisions, if enacted, will have an impact upon the City of London MCC, its commission area, its petty session and the role of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London as Justices of the Peace. It is certainly possible that the City will be able to persuade the GLMCA that it should remain a separate commission area for the indefinite future. What is, however, unacceptable is that the City's commission area alone among the commission areas in the country should have a statutory guarantee of preservation in perpetuity. That would be an unacceptable restriction on the power of the GLMCA when the Bill confers powers to make changes for every other part on England and Wales.
There are other areas of the country with their own separate commission areas which are a matter of county and historic pride and it would discriminate against them to provide a unique statutory guarantee for the City commission area. The Lord Mayor and the aldermen currently have special rights carried forward from a charter granted to them in 1741 by His Majesty King George II. They are the only body of persons in the country who have the right to be magistrates through election as aldermen—in other words, they become magistrates by virtue of their office and not as a result of appointment by me as Lord Chancellor (or in the case of magistrates within the Duchy of Lancaster, by the Chancellor of the Duchy).
In practice, prospective aldermanic candidates apply to the advisory committee prior to aldermanic elections for it to be determined whether they fulfil the criteria for appointment as magistrates. That is sensible and can continue as of course. In practice, prospective aldermanic candidates qualify as eligible to be appointed magistrates prior to their election. The practical position in the City commission area is that there is always a demand for the service of aldermen, when elected, as magistrates, provided they satisfy the advisory committee's criteria.
While I firmly believe they play an important role in the delivery of justice in the capital, I also believe that it cannot be right for the ancient rights and privileges of the Lord Mayor and the aldermen to be justices of the peace by virtue of their office to continue in perpetuity. Amendment No. 299A amends Clause 51 by removing this automatic right of the Lord Mayor and the aldermen of the City of London to be lay justices of the peace by virtue of their office. The effect of this amendment means that the Lord Mayor and the aldermen will become justices of the peace only after passing through the same selection procedure as applies to all other magistrates through England and Wales. The amendment also means

1253
that they can, if they so wish, and are suitably qualified, apply to become either stipendiary or acting stipendiary magistrates or district judges (magistrates' courts) as they will in future be known.
It will be my policy—and this is a policy I believe will be appropriate as long as there is a need for aldermen to be justices—to appoint those who have been elected as aldermen, as justices if the advisory committee, applying the same criteria as apply in the rest of the country, recomend their appointment to me. To give effect to that policy, I shall be requiring my advisory committee to consider aldermen candidates as and when they present themselves for selection and within the timescales needed for aldermen selection.
The current position for the residence qualification for justices of the peace is that they must reside in or within 15 miles of the commission area to which they are appointed. However, many of the aldermen live more than 15 miles from the City. Therefore, I propose that if the Lord Mayor and the aldermen are appointed justices of the peace, I shall exempt them from this requirement. Amendment No. 299C gives effect to that proposal.
Furthermore, Amendment No. 328E inserts a new paragraph in Schedule 10 which allows the existing Lord Mayor and aldermen to remain justices of the peace as if they had been appointed under the current arrangements. These amendments set out my policy in respect of the Lord Mayor and the aldermen as justices. The remaining amendments grouped with these make further statutory amendments to give effect to my policy.
I should not wish to depart from explaining these amendments to the Committee without expressing the Government's appreciation for the high quality services that the aldermanic magistrates have rendered over the years for the benefit of the public and the City and to express my expectation that they will do so in the future. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has anticipated a question that I was going to ask and to a large extent he has answered it. As he is well aware, the potential effects on the Corporation of this change—I am referring to the effects of Amendment No. 229A—I would go very much further than the amendment suggests if the Lord Mayor and Aldermen were not in fact appointed as magistrates. That is because, I understand, other parts of the Corporation's constitution require that they are magistrates; if they were not, other functions of the Corporation, such as the operation of the City of London Police Authority and the relationship of the Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen with the livery companies, would be affected.
I believe that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen would prefer statutory backing for the future of both offices as magistrates. However, the noble and learned Lord has gone a very long way to reassuring future Lord Mayors and Aldermen of his commitment to their status as magistrates. In those circumstances, I certainly would not wish to press this matter any further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Commission areas and petty sessions areas: amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 299B to 299D:
Page 75, leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert—
(".—(1) Section 19 of the Administration of Justice Act 1964 (sheriff of Greater London and under-sheriffs for London commission areas) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (appointment of sheriff of Greater London and under-sheriff for each London commission area), for "and for each London commission area an under-sheriff shall be so appointed" substitute "and an under-sheriff shall be so appointed for each area of Greater London (not including any part of the City) specified by the Lord Chancellor by order; and an order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
(3) In subsection (2) (application of enactments to under-sheriffs as if London commission areas were counties), for "London commission area" substitute "area specified by virtue of subsection (1) of this section".
(4) In subsection (4) (modification of Sheriffs Act 1887 in its application to Greater London)—

(a) for "London commission area" substitute "area specified by virtue of subsection (1) of this section",

(b) for "a justice of the peace for any of the London commission areas" substitute "any justice of the peace for a commission area consisting of or including the whole or part of Greater London", and

(c) for the words from "shall be sent" to the end substitute "shall be sent to the officer specified by the Lord Chancellor by order made by statutory instrument".").

Page 76, line 26, at end insert—
("23A. In section 6 (residence qualification for justices), after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) If a person who is the Lord Mayor or an alderman of the City of London is appointed in accordance with section 5 above as a justice of the peace for a commission area including the City of London, subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to his appointment as a justice of the peace for that area so long as he holds either of those offices."").
Page 77, line 32, at end insert—
(". In section 70(1) (application of enactments to City of London), for "justices for the City" substitute "justices for a commission area consisting of or including the whole or part of the City".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Unification and renaming of stipendiary bench]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 300:
Page 28, line 9, leave out ("District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)") and insert ("stipendiary magistrate").
The noble Lord said: Grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 301 to 310 and 312 to 317. Although it is accepted that stipendiary magistrates are professional lawyers who support and complement the work of benches, they enjoy the same powers and the jurisdictional limitations as the lay magistrates. Their sentencing powers are identical and the maximum penalties which apply to the bench are the same. To differentiate their role from that of lay magistrates may demean the latter's role in the eyes of the courts' users and the general public.
Stipendiary magistrates will of course continue to play an important role in the magistrates' courts. A change of title may be confusing and create the appearance, however mistaken, of a two-tier system. We should take into account the views of the lay magistrates, who consider the change of name to be detrimental to the role and image of the magisterial system. Magistrates are often already suspicious that stipendiaries are liable to get the more interesting cases and the change of their name to district judges will increase their concern. I beg to move.
Viscount Tenby: I wish to speak to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. Most clauses in most Bills have some sort of rationale behind them, but I am bound to confess that the one relating to this clause has been so skilfully camouflaged that I am unable to detect it readily. I am sure we can dismiss as mischievous the proposition that it is included to feed the vanity of stipendiary magistrates. After all, what's in a name, though I am slightly surprised that they would prefer to be called "DJs" rather than "stipes": a sign of the times, I suppose.
I also cannot quarrel with the recommendation that such magistrates should be able to be sent to any commission area in need of them. Such a provision is long overdue. But why should peripatetic magistrates receive a new name? That is the mystery before us tonight. It seems to me that there is an inherent danger in the proposal to call stipendiary magistrates district judges. After all, as we have heard, both they and the lay magistrates operate in the same lower courts, their powers of sentencing are similar, though, since they are full time and skilled professionals, their throughput, to use an awful modern phrase, is much larger. As the chairman of a Bench, I was anxious that as many of my team as possible should watch a stipendiary in action. It was invaluable training for them.
So let there be no doubt of my appreciation of stipendiaries and their work. However, if this proposal goes through, we shall surely be creating a two-tier system in the lower courts. Will defendants become confused and think they are being dealt with by a higher court? What about lay magistrates? In my experience, unpaid workers tend not to be regarded as highly as those who are paid. Perhaps we can counter that by calling JPs District Justices (Lay) in future. That is many questions for a comparatively short provision. I greatly hope that the Minister will be able to provide some of the answers.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: One could think these many amendments superficial and unimportant, but they are not. The great British public today are astonishingly confused about the organisation of the state and the judicial system. The magistrates' courts have a great advantage in being known and familiar throughout the land. That cannot be said of any other part of the system.
I urge strongly that unless there is some reason for change of which this Committee is unaware, we let the names continue. It is an honourable name. The magistracy has 700 honourable years' service and I see absolutely no purpose in potentially confusing the role
1256
of the stipendiary magistrate with other judicial officers in the civil system through the proposed change. I do not need to repeat the potential implications of such a change vis-à-vis the standing of lay justices. I am sure that every Member of the Committee would wish to uphold to the fullest extent the standing of the lay magistracy who, I venture to suggest, are perhaps the most important single institution in the state outside these Houses of Parliament. I urge strongly therefore that the Government think hard about this apparently superficial, but far from superficial, change.
Lord Crathorne: I too support these amendments. I do so as president of the Cleveland and North Yorkshire Magistrates' Association. I want to put on record how strongly magistrates feel about the change of name. There have been eloquent speeches from all sides of the Chamber in that regard, and I hope that the matter will be carefully considered.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want in any way to play down the importance of names. Those of us who sat through the proceedings on the Police and Magistrates' Court Bill of 1994 will remember how much emphasis there was on names. In that case, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, will recall, the proposal of the then Lord Chancellor to call justices' chief executives, as they are now called, chief justices' clerks, caused fury on the Cross-Benches and indeed the Bill was changed accordingly. And why not? We have a better title as a result.
I fully agree therefore that titles are important. But the Government are here pursuing a course which is legitimate from both sides of the fence and not creating an unnecessary fence. We announced our intention to modernise justice and to make it accessible to all. One of the ways we intend to do that is by establishing a unified Bench of professional judges in the magistrates' courts with a new title reflecting their status. The new title is important in recognising the work of the district judge magistrates' court and underlines the role of the unified Bench. But the important point to note is that it will not undermine the lay Bench, nor create a two-tier system; nor will it affect the number of lay magistrates. The new title was sought by the stipendiary magistrates and they have welcomed the offer of this new title, which realistically gives effect to their status as full-time professional judges. It will also assist in launching the new unified Bench, which is provided for in this part of the Bill, by confirming to the public the judicial status that stipendiaries currently hold.
It will also aid court users in that the district judge (magistrates' court) will possess a title which more accurately reflects the work and expertise. No damage is done whatever to the lay magistrates by this proposal, but it does reflect the real work which those who are now called stipendiary magistrates do. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: There were three points of note in that reply, one of which related to the unified Bench. It seems to me that if there is a stipendiary magistrate and a lot of other magistrates, that is a unified Bench,

1257
but a judge and other magistrates is hardly a unified Bench. "Modernisation", which is the key word, must not be confused with change for the sake of change.
When "clients", as I think they are now called, come before the court and find that they are in front of a judge instead of a magistrate, I believe they will be much more fearful. We know that the district judge can give only the same punishment as a magistrate, but I am sure that the clients will not know that.
This amendment is obviously well supported and I may well wish to bring it back on Report. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 301 to 317 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Unification and renaming of stipendiary bench]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 317A:
Page 78, line 22, leave out from ("for") to end of line 28 and insert ("any one of the police magistrates at any of the Metropolitan Police Courts" substitute "two justices of the peace", and
(b) omit the words from "or if the offence,", in the first place, to "the county;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 317B:
Page 82, line 38, leave out from ("for") to end of line 40 and insert ("chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or a designated metropolitan magistrate" substitute "Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) or another District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated by him".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 317B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 317C to 317G, and 330K and 330L.
The purpose of these amendments is to give the senior district judge (magistrates' court) the authority to designate which district judge (magistrates' court) should deal with cases under the Extradition Act 1989. This will ensure that only those district judges (magistrates' courts) with the appropriate knowledge and expertise in extradition law will hear cases brought before the courts.
In moving this amendment, as I have said I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 330K to 330L in Schedule 11 which address minor changes to the wording of the Extradition Act to reflect the limitation of jurisdiction in extradition cases to district judges (magistrates' courts) designated by the senior district judge (magistrates' court). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 317C to 317G:
Page 82, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert—
("35.—(1) Section 9 (proceedings for committal) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (person arrested in pursuance of a warrant under section 8 to be brought before a court consisting of a metropolitan magistrate or a sheriff), omit the words from "consisting" to the end.
(3) In subsection (2) (court of committal in England and Wales), after "Wales" insert "shall consist of the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) or another District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated by him and".
(4) In subsection (3) (court of committal in Scotland), after "Scotland" insert "shall consist of the sheriff of Lothian and Borders and".").
Page 83, leave out line 3 and insert ("In paragraphs 1(2)(b), 6(2), 7(1) and (2), 8(1) and 11, for "metropolitan magistrate").
Page 83, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) In paragraph 4(2) (order of Secretary of State for issue of warrant), for "a metropolitan magistrate" substitute "the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) or another District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated by him".
( ) In paragraph 5 (issue of warrant for apprehension on receipt of order by metropolitan magistrate)—

(a) in sub-paragraphs (1)(a) and (3), for "a metropolitan magistrate" substitute "the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate), or another District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated by him,", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (4), for "metropolitan magistrate, unless the metropolitan magistrate" substitute "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) unless he".

( ) In paragraph 6(1) (hearing of case), for "metropolitan magistrate, the metropolitan magistrate" substitute "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) he".").
Page 83, line 6, at end insert ("references to the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) or another District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated by him were to any District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) and those references and the").
Page 83, line 9, leave out from ("Ireland;",") to end of line 11 and insert—

("(b) in sub-paragraph (1)(c), for "the stipendiary magistrate," substitute "any District Judge (Magistrates' Courts), or the", and

(c) omit sub-paragraph (2).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 53 and 54 agreed to.
11. 45 p.m.
Clause 55 [Areas outside Greater London]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 318:
Page 30, line 44, at end insert ("; and
(c) such functions relating to matters of an administrative character or a non-judicial character as they may be authorised to undertake.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 55 changes significantly the role of the magistrates' courts committees. Hitherto, committees have been responsible for the efficient and effective administration of magistrates' courts.
That remit does not extend to the organisation of the local Benches. Advisory committees recommend the appointment of justices, and the local Benches elect their chairmen and deputy chairmen, and constitute

1259
panels and committees. The Benches are responsible for all judicial actions which include the listing of cases. The distinction between the role of the Bench and that of the committee is important. It establishes the divide between the judiciary and the administration. The courts exercise a judicial discretion in respect of individual cases and the committees do so in respect of the management of resources. To maintain that delicate balance, Clause 55 should make it abundantly clear that any functions which are conferred or imposed on the committees should be of an administrative or non-judicial character.
The fact that non-magistrate members of the committees may become a majority, some of whom could be local politicians, may compromise the magistrates and the Benches if the organisation of Benches becomes a responsibility of the magistrates' courts committees. It is therefore important that the committees' remit is clearly defined within acceptable limits. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fully recognise the seriousness of the issue to which the noble Lord refers in this amendment and I do not want to do anything other than take the amendment seriously, but it is unnecessary.
The definitions of the functions of MCCs outside Greater London, as set out in Section 27(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, are unchanged by Clause 55. That reflects the position since the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. The 1997 Act was the consolidation Act. The position is working well.
Clause 55 merely splits the old Section 27(1) into new Sections 27A and 27B. The substantive changes to Section 27 are to replace the provisions of Section 27(2) onwards with new Sections 27A and 27B. There are two reasons for that. I am going outside the literal terms of the noble Lord's amendment because the issue is important. First, that is consequential with the establishment under the Bill of a Greater London magistrates' court authority. Secondly, MCCs are currently defined in terms of local government areas such as counties and metropolitan districts. Continuing amalgamations mean that the definition of the committee area in primary legislation is no longer reflected by the reality on the ground. Committees now increasingly comprise more than one defined area and the area definition in Section 27 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 is becoming obsolete.
I understand the concern behind the proposed amendments: that MCCs should not encroach upon judicial functions. The independence of legal advice provided by justices' clerks, and the duties and responsibilities of magistrates, are protected by Section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act. The MCC has no locus in the judicial process. This clause does not change that.
The primary purpose of this clause is to ensure the easy identification of MCCs in England and Wales. The clause removes the definition of MCCs in terms of local government areas and replaces it with one where MCCs are defined by order. It does not amend the procedure
1260
for reorganising an MCC or the definition of its function as established under the 1994 Act. There will continue to be statutory consultation on proposed local changes. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Standard goods and services]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 318A:
Page 35, line 14, leave out from ("requiring") to end of line 16 and insert ("every magistrates' courts committee, or every specified magistrates' courts committee, to obtain for the performance of any function referred to in section 55(1) above").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 318B. The amendment has the effect of applying a technical clarification to Clause 58, making it clear that the reason why the MCC is being required to obtain particular goods or services is for the proper performance of its functions in the context of Section 55(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. The amendment also makes explicit that any regulations made may set a specific time by or at which the goods or services should be obtained.
Clause 58 allows the Lord Chancellor, if he considers that it would be in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of the magistrates' courts generally, to make regulations to require all MCCs, or specified MCCs, to use specified goods or services, or goods or services of a specified description. For example, the Lord Chancellor may require MCCs to purchase goods or services from a particular supplier where the department has negotiated a national contract on beneficial terms. Alternatively, he may require MCCs to purchase goods or services of a specified description so that they are compatible with those used by other MCCs (or other agencies), but leave it up to the MCC (or the paying authority) from whom the items are to be obtained. It is particularly in relation to new technology that it is considered that the proposed power will be most useful, but it could also be used in respect of other items, such as court forms.
I well remember my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon recalling from her days in the Metropolitan Police that there were five police forces operating in the area around the M.25. Three different telecommunications systems applied to those forces, but they could not communicate with each other. I hope that these two amendments go some way towards ensuring that that does not happen in the magistrates' court service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 318B:
Page 35, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—
("(2) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1) above may include provision requiring magistrates' courts committees to obtain the specified goods or services, or goods or services of the specified description—

(a) from a specified person or person of a specified description;

(b) at or by a specified time; or

(c) both from such a person and at or by such a time.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Qualification for appointment]:
On Question, Whether Clause 59 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: If Clause 59 is to stand part of the Bill, then, in my submission, certain changes will have to be made to Clauses 60 and 61. The provisions in all three clauses allow further encroachment by the courts' committee, and its chief executive, on the independence of the judiciary. The magistrates are supported by their professional advisers—that is to say, the justices' clerks. Section 45(4) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 provides that,
"the functions of a Justices' Clerk include giving advice to the justices to whom he is clerk at their request about law, practice or procedure on questions arising in connection with the discharge of their functions, including questions arising when the clerk is not personally attending on them".
Section 45(5) goes on to state that,
"the powers of a Justices' Clerk include, at any time when he thinks he should do so, bringing to the attention of those justices any point of law, practice or procedure that is or may be involved in any question so arising".
Through those provisions, the justices' clerk has, traditionally, brought to the attention of his justices changes to the law. The lay justice cannot, for example, be expected to pick up a new piece of legislation or read all the cases relevant to his or her area of work. Justices rely on their justices' clerks to bring relevant law to their attention, and then to advise on its interpretation. Under Clause 60, the Government propose that justices' clerks must now carry out this responsibility under the direction of the chief executive; and Clause 59 provides that this person need no longer be qualified in the law.
In practice this may mean that, at bench meetings and at magistrates' training sessions, the justices' clerk can be directed to give the interpretation of new legislation that is most favoured by the executive. It is not good enough for the Government to suggest that the independence of the judiciary is preserved by the fact that the justices' chief executive cannot direct the justices' clerk when advising a justice, or justices, in an individual case. If the chief executive has given a direction on the advice to be given through correspondence, at bench meetings or in training sessions, what credibility has the justices' clerk who, in the privacy of the retiring room, then advises justices in an individual case and says, "Ignore what I told you at the bench meeting, in my circular and in the training—what I say to you now is contrary, yet correct, advice"?
1262
The provisions of Clause 61(5) are also of concern to both the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society. The Lord Chancellor will know that a working group on the judicial and administrative boundary in magistrates' courts was set up by his officials and yet, after 12 months of work, failed to come up with a clear definition of what work could be described as truly judicial and what work could be defined as administrative. The noble and learned Lord's officials were unsuccessful in drawing this distinction; it now appears that the noble and learned Lord is going to draw the distinction through statute.
He does so by defining all of the justices' clerks' functions as administrative—apart from giving advice to justices of the peace in an individual case and functions conferred on them when they act as a single justice. What then of the listing of cases? This is a function carried out by justices' clerks on behalf of their justices. In his speech on judicial independence, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice quoted the then Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, from a lecture he gave on 6th March 1991. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said in relation to judges:
"Their function is to decide cases and in so doing they must be given full independence of action, free from any influence. But in order to preserve their independence, the judges must have some control or influence over the administrative penumbra immediately surrounding the judicial process. If judges were not, for example, in control of the listing of cases to be heard in the courts it might be open to an unscrupulous Executive to seek to influence the outcome of cases … by ensuring that they were listed before judges thought to be sympathetic to a point of view or simply by delaying the hearing of a case if that seemed to advantage the public authority concerned".
If Clause 61(5) is enacted, as presently drafted, in my submission listing becomes defined as an administrative function in magistrates' courts.
Viscount Tenby: I wish to make a brief observation about this matter. Of course many of my birds will already have been shot by the time I move my amendments because these matters are inextricably mixed. In fact I do not know why some of them were not grouped together. I have no intrinsic objection to a lack of a legal qualification for a justices' chief executive because it seems to me that you have to get talent wherever you can get it, but all other things must be equal. That point has been ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in opposing this clause.
I mention briefly in passing that the proposition in Clause 56—the Committee need not worry, I am not going back to it—that the number of co-opted members on an MCC might be increased from the present ceiling of two also looks attractive were it not for the fact that so far only about two MCCs out of 84 have even got as far as two.
Midnight
Lord Gisborough: Perhaps I may speak to my Amendments Nos. 319 to 322.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord can do that; however, the grouping was agreed, not by the

1263
Government, but by noble Lords who are taking part. I was proposing to say that I should treasure the lapidary words of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in my heart, but that they had nothing whatever to do with Clause 59 stand part. I should much prefer to debate the issues of detail in relation to Clauses 60 and 61 on the specific amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. In that way, we have something that we can get our teeth into.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, without repeating himself afterwards, will accept that it would be better to let Clause 59 stand part and then debate specific amendments.
Lord Kingsland: With great respect to the noble Lord, as I said at the outset, my attitude to the wording of Clause 59 will depend very much on what the noble Lord's reaction is to the amendments to Clauses 60 and 61. If the noble Lord does not intend to accept those amendments, I shall oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill. So, with respect, in dealing with my submissions on Clause 59, the noble Lord has to deal with questions relating to Clauses 60 and 61.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendments are proposed to Clauses 60 and 61. I want to do the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the courtesy of hearing their arguments on those amendments, and then I propose to respond to them. It would be discourteous of me to do otherwise.
Clause 59 removes the requirement that a person may not be appointed as a justices' chief executive without specified legal requirements. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Role]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 319:
Page 36, leave out lines 7 to 10.
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 319 to 322 I hope that I shall not repeat too much of what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said.
Recently, the previous Lord Chancellor stated that MCCs are important protectors of judicial independence. They must maintain the boundary between administration and judicial decision-making.
During the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, the then Lord Chancellor laid great stress on the importance of the judicial independence of the courts. The Act defined clear responsibilities for magistrates' courts committees and provided for the appointment of justices' chief executives, whose duties were also outlined.
To reflect the concerns acknowledged by the then Lord Chancellor, Section 48 of the Act recognised the risk of magistrates' courts committees and justices' chief executives interfering with the independence of a justices' clerk and legal staff in relation to legal functions and therefore provides that such officers shall not be subject to the direction of the committee or the justices' chief executive when performing legal
1264
functions. Only the justices' clerk, and through him his staff, has the statutory responsibility of giving advice to magistrates.
The 1994 Act, now incorporated in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, makes a clear and crucial distinction between the justices' clerk as a legal adviser and the justices' chief executive as the executive officer and resource manager of the magistrates' court committee and defines their separate responsibilities.
In the White Paper, Modernising Justice, the Government's stated intention is to improve the management of magistrates' courts and the legal support given to lay magistrates by making a clear distinction between the two functions. Those advising magistrates need to be able to concentrate upon that important function.
I support the Government's contention that dedicated and skilled administrators who are fully engaged on that task are required to manage a modern magistrates' courts service. Justices' chief executives support committees in planning and managing the efficient and effective administration of the courts in the area.
At present, justices' clerks continue to be responsible in primary legislation for many administrative matters, often delegated to administrators. It is these powers and duties which can be transferred to the justices' chief executive under Clause 61. However, duties of a legal and judicial nature which are not protected by the provisions of Section 48 and the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 must never be subject to the direction of a justices' chief executive.
The temptation for justices' chief executives to meet government targets in the guise of co-ordinated and planned strategies, based upon performance indicators and unit costs with the prosecuting authorities at the expense of dispensing justice impartially, fairly and effectively, will be called into question.
The basis of the proposed new Section 41(6) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 in Clause 60 is fundamentally and constitutionally flawed. If a person has a statutory duty to perform, he must do it in an unfettered way. If the Government do not wish a person to possess such powers, then remove him and place him in some other office. Do not compromise this situation by the directions of another, as it could compromise the very foundations of judicial independence and public confidence in it. If such a transfer is to take place, then surely Parliament must scrutinise those powers. It is not right that they should merely be defined by the Lord Chancellor in some statutory instrument.
Even the magistrates' courts committee cannot direct the justices' clerk under the clause. We should ensure that in judicial and legal matters the justices' chief executive should not do so.
I beg to move the amendment to protect the judicial independence of the justices' clerks and that of the magistrates.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: At this time of night, I intend to make only one point in support of the underlying purpose of the two amendments which are grouped together. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord

1265
Kingsland, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, have already referred to the underlying principle, which I am sure no one in the Committee would seek to subvert. It is to retain to the justices their full judicial powers, untrammelled by the intervention of a clerk or a justices' chief executive.
I wish to ask the Lord Chancellor to consider the impact of Clause 60(1) in so far as it would introduce into the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 a new Section 41. I believe that it is not currently clear. If one reads new Clause 41(1) together with new Clause 41(5) and then tracks over to Clause 61(5) of the Bill, it is not clear—and obviously the matter needs to be examined—that the concerns raised by the two amendments are met.
As I read it, under new Clause 41(5), everything that a justices' chief executive may do shall be subject to directions given him by the magistrates' committee. If that is correct, if every function that the justices' chief executive has under the Bill is subject to the directions of the magistrates' court committee, I believe that the anxieties of those proposing the two amendments are met. But I am not sure that that is the case when I read the three clauses. It is not clear and it would be helpful to have a response.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The effect of Amendment No. 319 would be to remove the subsection which provides that it is the duty of the justices' chief executive to make arrangements for the effective and efficient administration of the magistrates' courts within the area of the magistrates' courts committee which employs him as chief executive.
The post of justices' chief executive, as it is now properly called, we agree, was created in 1994 to carry on the day-to-day administration of the courts. Every magistrates' courts committee has long since appointed a justices' chief executive to manage the administration. The time is now ripe to look again, in the light of this experience, at how the relationship between the committee and the chief officer works.
Many reports by the Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate highlight the need for committees, while keeping a close watch on performance, to step back from operational management. The committee is there to decide strategy and set standards and to monitor and be accountable for implementation and achievement.
Clause 60 removes the committee's responsibility for allocating tasks among staff and determining administrative procedures. The day-to-day running of the courts' committees' area is the responsibility of the justices' chief executive.
This clause achieves that arrangement. It clarifies the responsibilities of justices' chief executives as line managers for all staff of the committee. It places the responsibility for allocating tasks and determining procedures with the chief executive. Clause 60 clarifies the relationships between and the functions of the committee and its officers. That clarity is important to achieve better management and improved accountability in the administration of magistrates' courts. It is appropriate for the modern management of today and in the future.
1266
New Section 41, subsection (5), confirms that a justices' chief executive shall perform his duties in accordance with any directions given to him by the committee. The justices' chief executive is ultimately accountable to the committee for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates' courts in the area. If Amendment No. 319 were accepted it would remove the basis on which the day-to-day duties of running magistrates' courts are allocated. No one would have responsibility; the noble Lord's amendment would leave a lacuna.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 320 to 322 would be to extend the provisions which protect the independence of justices' clerks in the exercise of their duties, as set out in Section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, the consolidation Act. The new Section 41 introduced in Clause 60 makes it clear that the justices' chief executive is responsible for making arrangements for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates' courts in his area. The justices' chief executive may give directions to any of the staff of the committee, including justices' clerks, in respect of those administrative responsibilities and any other functions conferred on them by or under any enactment. It is clearly appropriate for him to do so.
There is one important exception to these powers of direction in Clause 60, and that is to protect the independence of the judicial process contained in Section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act. Noble Lords may recall that the separation of judicial and administrative functions was debated in 1994. I do not conceal that those were difficult debates; I took part in them from the Benches opposite. As the then Lord Chancellor observed during the course of Third Reading, the essential function of the justices' clerk is to advise his Bench in an individual case. Parliament accepted that it is possible to differentiate between judicial and administrative functions.
The integrity of the judicial process in deciding individual cases must be entirely free from direction. When justices' clerks or their deputies are advising magistrates in individual cases, or when they are exercising their own judicial powers, Section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act provides that independence. The new Section 41, which is inserted by Clause 60 of the Bill, makes it quite plain that justices' chief executives may not give directions to justices' clerks in relation to matters set out in Section 48. Moreover, it is quite clear from the new Section 41 that the responsibilities of the chief executive relate to the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates' courts for the area and not to the decision-making process in individual cases.
We have heard of instances where justices' chief executives have purported to issue directions that would have the effect of interfering in individual cases; for example, in the area of fine enforcement a direction that fines must be set at a particular level, or remitted, or not imposed in some circumstances. If that has happened, it is entirely wrong. In those examples, Section 48 is not being applied as it should.

1267
There is no reason why there should not be general policies, which have a part to play in promoting consistency of treatment. There may be several justices' clerks within the area of a magistrates' courts committee; the obvious person to promulgate information across the whole area, often through the justices' clerk, is the chief executive. For example, I would expect justices' clerks to be informed about the minimum amount that may be collected by credit card payment before the administrative charge exceeded the amount of the payment. Directions may go as far as saying that this information must be passed to magistrates, but it must always be made clear that such information is, in every individual case, subject to the absolute discretion of the person holding the judicial discretion.
There are other examples: the committee's general policy on fine enforcement, including such matters as which types of enforcement officers are generally to be used, with which bailiff companies the committee holds a contract, and the types of payment method available; good practice or procedure the Government wish to promote as helping to reduce delays; and standard operating procedures on such matters as the offices at which certain documents are to be lodged, and which courthouses have suitable facilities for disabled people.
I have not heard any convincing arguments as to why a justices' clerk should not be subject to direction by his line manager, the justices' chief executive, for all functions other than those protected by Section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his long explanation which will be read with very great interest by the justices' clerks who are very concerned about this matter. The noble Lord has also answered a good number of the points arising on Amendments Nos. 323 to 326. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 320 to 322 not moved.]
12.15 a.m.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby moved Amendment No. 322A:
Page 37, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) after "functions" insert "and powers";").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 322A I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 322B. Since the shades of night are falling fast and it has been a long day perhaps the Committee will allow me to encompass Amendment No. 326ZA since all of these amendments are based on the same concern; namely, the independence of the justices' clerk in giving legal advice to his justices, which can be described only as the nitty-gritty of this clause. We have skirted round this for quite a time with various amendments that have come and gone. I am sorry to retrace my steps a little but I shall be as quick as possible.
I believe that the provisions concerned with the future relationship between the justices' chief executive and the Bench's justices' clerk entirely justify the concern which is evident within the magistracy and has been expressed in the Committee tonight. What it comes down to is that in future the justices' clerk will be unfettered in giving advice to his justices only on legal matters in individual cases and at all other times he may be subject to the directions of the justices' chief executive who may not be qualified in legal matters.
One of the provisions of the Bill is that a legal qualification need not be a requirement for appointment as a justices' chief executive. I have no quarrel with that proposal. To ensure that the best business and managerial talent is available to MCCs must make sense. I have been long associated with an MCC which I believe is the only one in England and Wales so favoured. I use the word "favoured" quite deliberately. But the corollary of this is that legal matters must be left in the domain of the justices' clerk.
I quote one example. Since criminal justice Bills have been annual events for the past 10 years, training takes on even greater importance in all magistrates' courts. The only people who are qualified to give such instruction are justices' clerks. I would be grateful to receive the assurance of the Minister that the role of the justices' clerk in that area of training is absolutely guaranteed. Were the task to be undertaken by anyone else there would not be the necessary guarantee of impartiality. For example, who is to say that a spin in favour of a government's desired option may not be imparted to some new legal provision?
There are other duties that should be undertaken by justices' clerks. Can anyone honestly contend that listing is not one of them? So that I should not be thought to be one of the unhelpful diehards, in principle, I do not see why the collection of fines, other than judicial decisions relating to enforcement, cannot come within the compass of a justices' chief executive. I believe that that is an administrative function.
I return however to the overriding concern created in these clauses which is the threat to the independence of legal advisers. Unless one clearly delineates—the Minister has been kind and wise enough to refer to the difficulty over nomenclature that arose when we discussed the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act—one has a grey area. If I understand it correctly, the magistracy says that there should not be any grey areas but only black and white areas so that everyone knows where they stand. Let the justices' chief executives and justices' clerks know what they can and cannot do. The purpose of my amendment is to refer to the correct description of the duties of the justices' clerk in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for proposing his four amendments together. It is more sensible. Amendments Nos. 322A and 322B propose changes to Clause 60, which addresses the role of the justices' chief executive. The effect of the amendments—although they are technically defective—is to extend the protection from direction provided in Section 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act

1269
1997. I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. They seek to extend Section 48 when, as I said in response to the earlier amendment, what is needed is the correct application of Section 48.
The new Section 41 of the Justices of the Peace Act that Clause 60 introduces makes it plain that justices' chief executives may not give directions to justices' clerks in matters set out in Section 48.
I now turn to the two amendments to Clause 61. Clause 61 enables the magistrates' courts committee to separate the legal and administrative functions undertaken in the committee's area. Subsection (1) brings into effect Schedule 9 which makes amendments to existing legislation, transferring certain administrative functions of justices' clerks to justices' chief executives. Transferring the responsibility for those tasks will enable the chief executive to delegate to any appropriate member of staff which may, of course, include the justices' clerk. That is a decision that can be made locally.
I turn to Amendment No. 326YA, the effect of which would be to further qualify the description of administrative functions. As I said, I do not intend to transfer the responsibility from the justices' clerk to the justices' chief executive for the provision of legal advice generally; nor do we wish to interfere in the relationship between the justices' clerk and the Bench of magistrates.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred to the wording of subsection (5). The purpose of that subsection is to give reassurance. However, we are willing to look again at the drafting of subsection (5) in the light of what has been said. In turn, that could have an effect on the wording of Clause 60 that we have debated already. To that extent, there is an opening.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 326ZA, the effect of which would insert two new subsections in Clause 61. I said earlier that it is not the role of the chief executive to interfere in individual cases. The chief executive cannot and must not interfere in the judicial process which is fully protected within the existing provisions of Clause 48 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. The further definition that subsection (7) would introduce specifies a description of judicial function for justices' clerks which is simply not acceptable. It would bring about exactly the position I mentioned earlier where the chief executive was prevented from giving directions to justices' clerks on matters of information such as good practice. I recognise that that is a sensitive area. It is appropriate to discuss the matter now and the department is in consultation and correspondence with a number of interested parties on these matters. It is vital to preserve the integrity of proceedings in the magistrates' courts and we believe that the provisions in Clauses 60 and 61, subject to what I said about subsection (5), will serve to achieve the delivery of better quality legal advice to lay justices while simultaneously ensuring that the responsibility for the efficient administration is appropriately placed with the chief executive.
1270
As I said, I shall consider any further representations, and if necessary bring forward further amendments. I hope the noble Viscount is reassured and that he will therefore withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Tenby: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his courtesy in dealing so fully with this important matter - and it is important. I may be suffering from late night languor, but I hope I have detected a chink of light and sweet reasonableness in what he said. I shall wait until the cold light of morning to study it more closely. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 322B not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Transfer of administrative functions of justices' clerks]:
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 323:
Page 37, line 16, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
The noble Lord said: Most of the points I would have made have been covered. However, I wish to raise two matters.
First, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should not by statutory instrument be allowed to amend what is and what is not administrative. It must be a matter which Parliament alone should determine because of the consequences of judicial independence.
Secondly, I am not entirely sure that the noble and learned Lord has considered all the ramifications which transferring control functions to the justices' chief executive will cause in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. Will the justices' chief executive appear in person when prosecuting fine or maintenance defaulters as the justices' clerk will no longer be able to act in the same capacity of collecting officer because of the danger of partiality? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for not repeating the arguments which we have adequately rehearsed, so I shall respond only to his specific points.
The noble Lord complains that subsection (2) provides for the Lord Chancellor to make an order by statutory instrument to transfer administrative functions and says that this should be a matter of primary legislation. I cannot accept that, and neither did the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. These are matters which may change from time to time and it would be clumsy for it to wait for a suitable opportunity to come back to Parliament.
The noble Lord's second point is more technical. If I may, I shall write to him on that. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 324 to 326YA not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 326ZA:
Page 37, line 31, at end insert—
("(6) In performing a duty or function imposed or conferred on him by section 41 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 or by or under any other enactment, a justices' chief executive must not do anything which—

(a) amounts to performance of a judicial function, or

(b) might influence anything done by a justice of the peace or justices' clerk in the performance of a judicial function.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), a judicial function is—

(a) any function of a justice of the peace, and

(b) any function of a justices' clerk which is not an administrative function.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment when addressing Clause 59. The noble Lord has effectively replied to it in the course of his various replies to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I shall therefore not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 326ZA not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Execution by person not in possession of warrant]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 326A:
Page 41, line 42, after ("order);") insert—

("( ) a warrant under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (unwilling witnesses);

( ) a warrant under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (offenders referred to court by youth offender panel);").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 326A, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 326B and 331. These amendments make minor technical changes to Clause 66 and Schedule 11 to ensure consistency with certain provisions in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Clause 66 of the Access to Justice Bill inserts a new Section 125 into the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Among other things this draws a distinction between those warrants which only a police officer may execute without the warrant being in his possession, and the warrants that may also be executed by civilians in similar circumstances. The list of warrants that may be executed by the police alone is identical to that which currently appears in Section 125 of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
However, provisions in the two other statutes, both of which affect the list in the current Section 125, are due to be introduced before Clause 66 is implemented. Paragraph 44 of Schedule 8 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 adds to the list warrants for the arrest of a reluctant witness. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill will also, if enacted, add to the list warrants for the arrest of an offender referred to the court by a youth offender panel. The amendment to Schedule 11 therefore provides for their appeal once Section 66 comes into force. The amendments to Clause 66 itself ensure that these
1272
provisions are added to new Section 125C which will re-enact the existing list of warrants which a constable may execute without the warrant being in his possession. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 326B:
Page 41, line 43, leave out ("or 97") and insert (", 97 or 97A").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Justices and clerks: immunity from costs]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 326C:
Page 43, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("House") in line 6 and insert ("No regulations may be made under subsection (4) above unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each").
The noble and learned Lord said: The government amendments to Clauses 68 and 72 provide that regulations under these clauses should be made by affirmative procedure.
The government amendments do not, however, cover the provisions in Clause 68 relating to Northern Ireland. The position in relation to Northern Ireland is different, for reasons I will explain. I therefore ask your Lordships to reject Amendment No. 327, the purpose of which is to provide that Northern Ireland regulations should also be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 68 inserts a new section into the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 to give justices of the peace and others immunity against costs orders. It makes similar provisions in respect of resident magistrates, justices of the peace and clerks of petty sessions in Northern Ireland.
Clause 72 inserts a new Section 2A into the Taxes Management Act 1970 to provide general commissioners of income tax with immunity from costs, or in Scotland expenses, arising from the execution of their duties.
To protect the interests of other parties to any proceedings, each of the new provisions also gives a court the power to order payment by the Lord Chancellor of costs which would, but for the new provisions, have been ordered to be paid by the judicial officer who was party to the proceedings. In respect of general commissioners of income tax in Scotland, expenses may be ordered to be paid by the Secretary of State.
The clauses provide for the Lord Chancellor, or in Scotland the Secretary of State, to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which a court may exercise its power to order payment of costs and how the amount of any costs award is to be determined. Under the clauses as they are drafted those regulations would be made under negative resolution procedure.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee concluded that the regulations should be subject to additional parliamentary scrutiny provided by the affirmative resolution procedure.
The Government recognise that the regulations will deal with the exercise of the discretion of the courts. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has accepted the conclusion of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on this point and brings forward these amendments accordingly. However, as I have said, an exception needs to be made in respect of the procedure for Northern Ireland regulations.
The effect of Section 2 of Clause 68 is to amend the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The practice is that subordinate legislation under an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is made under negative procedure. The fundamental reason for this is wholly practical. Parliament simply could not give enough time to deal with Northern Ireland subordinate legislation if it were dealt with on an equivalent basis to subordinate legislation for England and Wales. This is a problem which I hope political progress in Northern Ireland will eventually resolve. In the meantime, I believe it right to maintain the principle that has been followed since 1974 in respect of Northern Ireland legislation and therefore to provide for Northern Ireland regulations to be made under negative procedure.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor realises that he is not fulfilling the letter of the commitment given earlier, in the light of the Select Committee report, to make Clause 68 subject to affirmative resolution. I am sure that the Committee will understand why, on reflection, he felt that Northern Ireland practice should be maintained. He is happy to provide the affirmative resolution for the powers in Clause 68 which cover England and Wales and the powers in Clause 72 which are UK-wide.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 327 not moved.]
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [General Commissioners: immunity from costs and expenses]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 327A is accepted, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 328.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 327A:
Page 45, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("House") in line 12 and insert ("No regulations may be made under subsection (4) above unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 328 not moved.]
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Indemnity]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 328A:
Page 46, line 22, leave out ("against him").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 328B to 328D. Clause 74 amends the Coroners Act 1988 to make provision for coroners to be indemnified by their councils where they are respondents in legal proceedings brought against them in the course of their coroner duties. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the scope of that indemnity so that coroners may also be reimbursed in cases where they have initiated legal proceedings in their capacity as coroners.
Coroners will rarely need to take such action. However, after an inquest has been completed and the verdict given, it sometimes emerges that a mistake or error has been made which cannot be corrected other than by re-opening the inquest; or else new evidence comes to light which casts doubt on the verdict and which might justify a new inquest. In these circumstances, a coroner has no power to overturn the original inquest but may apply to the High Court for an appropriate order for a fresh inquest.
If a coroner decides to pursue such a course, his paying authority—the local council—is not at present required to reimburse him either his costs in bringing the proceedings, nor any costs which might be awarded against him as a result of the proceedings. Nor does the present clause offer the coroner protection since it limits indemnification to costs arising from proceedings brought against him.
The amendment is designed to rectify this anomaly. However, while we believe it is proper to require councils to reimburse coroners their costs where proceedings have been brought against them, we consider that, if the proceedings are to be brought by the coroner, it would be right to provide the council with an opportunity, in advance, to consider whether or not to indemnify the coroner in the light of the circumstances of the particular case. This would enable the council to consider, for example, whether it was reasonable to incur the costs which were likely to arise. In the event that a council refused consent, the coroner should have the opportunity to appeal, and the amendment provides for such an appeal to be made to the Secretary of State or to someone appointed by him for that purpose.
The amendment is concerned with providing proper protection both for coroners and their councils in circumstances where a financial liability may arise. It does not alter or limit the opportunities for applications to be made to the High Court for fresh inquests. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The proposed subsection (1A) refers to agreement "in advance". It seems to me that those words "in advance" may cause problems.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on that matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 328B to 328D:
Page 46, line 32, at end insert—
("(1A) Subsection (1) above applies in relation to proceedings by a coroner only if and to the extent that the relevant council agrees in advance to indemnify him.
(1B) A coroner may appeal to the Secretary of State, or to any person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose, from any decision of the relevant council under subsection (1A) above.").
Page 47, line 17, leave out ("against him").
Page 47, line 27, at end insert—
("(2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to proceedings by a coroner only if and to the extent that the Lord Chancellor agrees in advance to indemnify him.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 328E:
Page 100, line 14, at end insert—
("Lord Mayor and aldermen of City of London
. The person who is the Lord Mayor of London, and the persons who are aldermen of the City of London, at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed shall be treated as having at that time been appointed in accordance with section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 as justices of the peace for the commission area which includes the City of London; and, accordingly, subsection (1A) of section 6 of that Act (inserted by paragraph 23A of Schedule 7 to this Act) has effect in relation to them.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 328F:
Page 100, line 20, at end insert—
(" . Any person who, immediately before the time when section 52 of this Act comes into force, is authorised under section 13(1)(a) or 19 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 to act as a stipendiary magistrate or metropolitan stipendiary magistrate shall be treated as having been appointed to be a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) at that time for the remainder of the period for which he is so authorised.").
The noble and learned Lord said: With Amendment No. 328F I propose to make an amendment to Schedule 10, Part V, paragraph 20, in order to ensure that transitional arrangements are in place for the continued administration of justice by those acting stipendiaries who, when Clause 52 of the Access to Justice Bill becomes law, will be known as deputy district judges (magistrates' courts).
This amendment will allow for any person acting as a stipendiary magistrate or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate immediately before Clause 52 comes into force to be taken as having been appointed to be a deputy district judge (magistrates' courts) at that time and his appointment to act will be treated as being for such period as represents the remaining duration of his authorisation to act as a stipendiary had Clause 52 not come into force.
Amendment No. 328G is proposed to deal with the changes of date of commencement of Clause 52 and the effect that that will have on paragraph 38 of Schedule 8 which makes transitional provisions in respect of the Legal Aid Act 1988. The three minor amendments, Amendments Nos. 332, 333 and 334, which I propose
1276
to Clause 78 will have the effect of altering the commencement of the provisions of Clause 52 of the Access to Justice Bill from two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent to such day as the Lord Chancellor may, by order made by statutory instrument, appoint.
The reason for this is that there are a number of existing statutory instruments which refer to stipendiary magistrates, metropolitan stipendiary magistrates or the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate which will need to be amended to substitute the title district judge (magistrates' courts) or senior district judge (magistrates' courts) and we wish to ensure that all those changes are made at the same time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 328G:
Page 101, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("District") in line 6 and insert ("If paragraph 38 of Schedule 8 to this Act comes into force before the repeal by this Act of section 19(5) of the Legal Aid Act 1988, that provision shall have effect as if, in the definition of "proceedings for dealing with an offender as a fugitive offender" the reference to a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate were to a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals and revocations]:
[Amendments Nos. 329 and 330 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 330A:
Page 106, line 14, at end insert—

("6 & 7 Vict. c. 86.

The London Hackney Carriages Act 1843.

In section 24, the words from ", or, if he shall dwell" to "the said city,", the words "or justice" and the words ", or to some justice as aforesaid,".

16 & 17 Vict. c. 33.

The London Hackney Carriage Act 1853.

In section 18, the words from "or if the offence,", in the second place, to the end.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 330B to 330L:
Page 106, line 28, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 38(1), the definition beginning "London commission areas".")

Page 106, line 31, at end insert—

("1974 c. 47.

The Solicitors Act 1974.

Section 38(4).")

Page 106, line 38, column 3, leave out ("67(4), the second sentence") and insert ("67, in subsection (4), the second sentence and subsection (8)").
Page 107, line 10, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 11, in paragraph 8(d), the words "and (8)".")

Page 107, line 28, column 3, at beginning insert—

("Section 5(2)(b) and the preceding "and". In section 7(3), the words from "(whether" to "acting Chief Magistrate)". Section 21 (and the preceding heading). Section 23.

In section 25, in subsection (1), the words ", other than the City of London," and subsection (3).")

Page 107, line 34, column 3, leave out from ("section") to end of line 35 and insert ("70, in subsection (1), the words from the beginning to "above," and, in subsection (2), the words "or to justices or magistrates for a county or non-metropolitan county" and the words "or to justices or magistrates for the City".").
Page 107, line 50, column 3, after ("14,") insert ("16(b) and the preceding "and",").
Page 108, line 4, at end insert—

("16 & 17 Vict. c. 33.

The London Hackney Carriage Act 1853.

In section 18, the words from "or if the offence,", in the second place, to "for the county;".")

Page 108, line 33, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 9(1), the words from "consisting" to the end.")

Page 108, column 3, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert ("5(1)(b), the words "a metropolitan magistrate or" and paragraph 13(2).").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 330B to 330L en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 331:
Page 111, line 18, at end insert—

("1998 c. 37.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

In Schedule 8, paragraph 44.

1999 c. 00.

The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 7.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Commencement]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 48, line 2, leave out (" 52") and insert (" 51").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 333 to 335:
Page 48, line 2, leave out ("Schedules 7 and 8") and insert ("Schedule 7").
Page 48, line 4, leave out (", (2)").
Page 48, line 4, at end insert (", apart from the provisions specified in subsection (3).
(3) The provisions excepted from subsection (2)(e) are the repeal of section 67(8) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (and that in Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989) contained in Part IV(1) of Schedule 11.").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 333 to 335 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter before one o'clock.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Police Complaints Authority
  Secure Training Centres
  Secure Training Centres
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Firearms Register: Database
  Firearms Register: Database
  Drug Treatment Centres
  Drug Treatment Centres
  Reviewable Detention
  Reviewable Detention
  Criminal Records
  Criminal Records
  Persistent Young Offenders: Time between Arrest and Sentencing
  Persistent Young Offenders: Time between Arrest and Sentencing
  Offshore Accounts
  Offshore Accounts
  ROF Bishopton: Sourcing of Products after Closure
  ROF Bishopton: Sourcing of Products after Closure
  School Organisation and Admission Issues: Lead Adjudicator
  School Organisation and Admission Issues: Lead Adjudicator
  General Pinochet: Extradition Proceedings
  General Pinochet: Extradition Proceedings
  Law Lords: Reputation for Impartiality
  Law Lords: Reputation for Impartiality
  Food Standards
  Food Standards
  Planning Decisions: Performance Checklist
  Planning Decisions: Performance Checklist
  A.66 Temple Sowerby Bypass
  A.66 Temple Sowerby Bypass
  A.66 Safety Study
  A.66 Safety Study
  VDUs and Deterioration of Eyesight
  VDUs and Deterioration of Eyesight
  A. Simmers
  A. Simmers
  Scotpigs
  Scotpigs
  Coppicing in Scotland
  Coppicing in Scotland
  Secretary of State for Scotland: Responsibilities
  Secretary of State for Scotland: Responsibilities
  Royal Parks: Commercial Events
  Royal Parks: Commercial Events
  Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial: Kensington Gardens
  Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial: Kensington Gardens
  Planning Law: Ecclesiastical Exemption
  Planning Law: Ecclesiastical Exemption