Sitting of 8 July 1999

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Wednesday 14 July at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    New Deal
    Mr. Chris Pond: How he proposes to improve the promotion of self-employment through the new deal. [88964]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): We are promoting the self-employment option through personal advisers. By the end of May, 1,800 young unemployed people had started on new deal business courses, 800 had started test trading and more than 100 were independently running their own businesses. The very best promotion for the new deal self-employment option is the success of young people themselves, such as Mark Venning in Plymouth, who has not only started his own business through the new deal, but is now poised to recruit his first new deal employee.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that my hon. Friends in north Kent and I have carried out an inquiry into the operation of the new deal in our area? Generally, the response from those involved has been positive and enthusiastic. However, the concern is—it is certainly the perception—that the potential for self-employment has not been fully exploited. In building on the success of the new deal, and in developing the new ONE service, will he give the House an assurance that he will consult organisations such as the Prince's Trust, to ensure that young people with a good business idea can use their energies, talents and abilities to move out of unemployment and into self-employment?
    Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friends on their work locally, which builds on the extensive involvement
    1158
    of hon. Members in the new deal. That has been something of an innovation, and has greatly contributed to the success of the programme. We are working closely with the Prince's Trust Business, and I was pleased recently to announce, with the support of all parties in the House, an extra £50 million of matched funding, which should enable an additional 30,000 young people to start their own businesses over the next five years. A significant proportion of those 30,000 will be new deal young unemployed people.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: The Minister's statement is encouraging for those who have taken advantage of new deal opportunities. Does he agree with me and many colleagues present that there are individuals throughout our constituencies who did not achieve much academically at school, but who after leaving school have, with initiative and support, become successful in self-employment? Does he further agree that organisations such as the local economic development enterprise groups in Northern Ireland, which encourage new business start-ups, could provide support; and that, through the new deal, placements could be found for business start-up in such organisations?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, I do agree. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the programme, which, if it can help to tackle the historically high unemployment in his constituency and in neighbouring areas, will make a big contribution to overcoming the sectarian divisions that must be overcome if we are to make a success of the peace process, which we all want. I commend the efforts of start-up bodies, the Employment Service in Northern Ireland and local businesses, which are doing their bit in a great partnership effort to give new hope to young people who have had a rough start in life.
    Mr. John Healey: My right hon. Friend has recently announced continuous improvement targets for next year of 6 per cent. to boost the number of young people going into unsubsidised and subsidised jobs. They are good, fair targets. Will he confirm whether similar improvement targets have been set for the self-employment option, given its importance within the new deal programme? If not, will he consider doing so?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. It is actually a 6 percentage point improvement, which could mean an increase of as much as a third in some of the poorly performing units of delivery, and an increase of about 8 per cent. even in the best performing units. People who are securing self-employment through the new deal self-employment option are included in those targets.
    I shall give further thought to the question of whether we need specific targets for self-employment. I would inject a note of caution, however, because self-employment is not a realistic aspiration for everyone, and it is important that young people who start up their own business do so with their eyes open and with the right degree of support.
    Mr. John Bercow: We welcome any chance for new deal recruits to end up working for themselves, especially as most of them have had little chance to end up working for anyone else. On the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, more than

    1159
    16,000 recruits have gone back on benefits, almost 40,000 have disappeared to destinations unknown, and three quarters have failed to find employment. The Business Services Association, which started by supporting the scheme, says that the new deal has not proved effective at matching candidates to job vacancies. What guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman give the House that his latest scheme will not be as big a failure as his previous botched efforts?
    Mr. Smith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front-Bench team. It is the first opportunity I have had so to do—[Interruption.]—although my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that the hon. Gentleman is obviously still in the gateway stage.
    As the new deal has already helped 100,000 young people off benefit and into jobs and cut long-term youth unemployment since its introduction by two thirds, and as this country now has the lowest youth unemployment for 25 years, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support the efforts of the Employment Service, our partners, and employers throughout the country to make the new deal a success—offering hope and opportunity for young people—rather than try to undermine it.

    Schools Collaboration
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to improve the level of communication and co-operation between schools in the same locality. [88965]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): We regard better communication and co-operation between schools and particularly the dissemination of good practice as a vital part of our drive to raise standards in schools. Among the Government's initiatives are the beacon schools initiative, specialist school schemes, "Excellence in Cities", education action zones and a range of other ideas to that end.
    Mr. Sheerman: I welcome the Administration's announcements over the past two years, but as my hon. Friend will be aware, we have a legacy of poor co-operation between schools which we inherited from the former Administration. Will he look at innovative supply chain techniques in business and apply them to the relationships from the earliest school—pre-school—to universities? Will he come to my constituency of Huddersfield, where, led by the further education sector, we have achieved amazing results in improving quality, from pre-school to the local university?
    Mr. Clarke: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the achievements in Huddersfield. May I draw attention to the early-years development schemes, our development of school organisation committees, and the post-16 White Paper that was published last week, all of which are designed to generate co-operation between all aspects of education and to achieve what he mentions?
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I entirely endorse the philosophy that local schools should co-operate. On schools in the Vale of York area, which is now within the city of York, there was excellent
    1160
    co-operation at the level of North Yorkshire county council, which—I say it for the House's benefit—is Conservative controlled. I regret that, since it has had its own Labour-controlled local education authority, the city of York has not even developed a long-term education strategy to deal with the real problem of surplus places in the town. What will the Government do to correct that matter?
    Mr. Clarke: I have met delegates from the city of York and the local Members of Parliament to discuss those issues. The educational development plans focus precisely on the means of developing co-operation to address those issues; but it is a bit rich of Conservatives, who positively promoted division between schools when in government, to make criticisms on that front. We are trying to build co-operation.

    Pupil Mobility
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What assessment he has made of the effects of pupil mobility on standards in schools. [88966]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): We are supporting a research project into pupil mobility and its effect on schools, conducted by the migration research unit at University College, London. We expect preliminary results from the project to be available this month. We hope that the outcomes will provide more information on the issue of pupil mobility and the impact on standards in schools. We will keep the House informed of progress.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I give him an example from a primary school in my constituency which highlights the problem? I take the most recent year group to leave that school. During its four-year passage through the school, there were 123 pupils, yet of that number, only 40 were on the roll for the duration of those four years—a 67 per cent. mobility rate. A high proportion of those transient pupils suffer serious under-achievement, given the number who are on records of support, and it is much harder for the school to teach the 40 regulars, if I may call them that.
    Will my hon. Friend consider making resources available from the standards fund, once he has evaluated the research, to help schools to develop and to implement strategies to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The answer to his question is yes, we shall consider that, once we have evaluated the research. The fact is that mobility is very high in many surprising places: in seaside resorts, such as those in his own constituency; in inner-city areas, where there has been surprisingly high mobility; in places near armed forces, such as schools in Catterick; and in travellers' areas, migration areas, and rural inland areas. We have to understand pupil mobility far better, and then decide how to target resources so that they make a difference.

    Excluded Pupils
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What support has been made available to schools to help them reduce the number of pupils who are excluded. [88967]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): In 1999–2000, £57.4 million has been made available through the standards fund to help local education authorities and schools reduce levels of truancy and exclusion and move towards a full timetable for those out of school. Overall, £500 million will be made available over three years. Other measures to tackle truancy and exclusion include requiring authorities to set targets to reduce truancy and exclusion levels by one third by 2002, and, earlier this week, issuing new integrated guidance, "Social Inclusion; Pupil Support".
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware of the organisation Place to Be, which provides specialist counselling and therapy-based services in schools in areas such as Medway to assist children and their families when they are in periods of difficulty? That counselling is an enormous help to those families, and perhaps prevents them from going on to use other health services and waiting a long time. Additionally, its proactive approach means that many pupils who might face exclusion, either permanently or temporarily, may avoid doing so. Will she find out more about Place to Be, and try to ensure that thousands of other children benefit from that vital service?
    Ms Morris: I share with my hon. Friend the determination to take preventive action, so that we may stop youngsters being excluded. As he well knows, the purpose of the Place to Be project is to prevent long-term mental health difficulties in primary-aged children who may be at risk of such difficulties. I was delighted that some of the almost £500,000 that has been provided to Medway, where my hon. Friend's constituency is to be found, is being used to support Place to Be. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that Place to Be is also doing some work in one of the education action zones. We shall evaluate the project, as that is one of the grant conditions. However, after careful evaluation of the project, if it is proved to be effective, we shall of course be delighted to help to support it operating elsewhere.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Yesterday, the Education and Employment Committee published the Government's response to our report on highly able children, some of whom may also be at risk of exclusion if the maintained sector cannot meet their very particular needs. A nine-year-old girl in my constituency has not found in the maintained sector the education that she needs, and, this autumn, will be going to a local independent school. Will the Minister explain to the House why that girl and her family have to rely solely on charitable support to achieve the education that she needs, and why the Government will deny power to the local education authority to fund that provision?
    Ms Morris: The Government welcome the Select Committee report on the education of highly able children. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have launched a policy—the most wide-ranging such
    1162
    policy ever developed in the lifetime of the English education service—to support highly able children throughout the school system. His constituents will always have the choice of whether to access the independent sector to educate their children.
    The challenge, which the Government are meeting, is to ensure that the maintained sector values and provides a high standard of education to every single child, so that they are able to fulfil their potential. Our action—in providing extra resources and support, setting clear targets, modernising the comprehensive system, and ensuring diversity in primary and secondary education—is exactly the way to reach that goal, so that, in future, parents will not be faced with the very difficult dilemmas to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will be aware of the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the exclusion—from the Nelson Thomlinson school, in Cumbria—of a child from my constituency. In the light of that case—which I think has national significance—why cannot we now have a complete review of the whole policy? There was an injustice in that case, and we must find some way of ensuring that similar injustices do not occur in future.
    Ms Morris: I recall the case to which my hon. Friend refers. We have had lengthy correspondence on it and I very much hope that it has been resolved. We have a good system for dealing with exclusions and disputes between parents and schools. It is inevitable that the relationships between parents and schools will occasionally break down. Sometimes the victims are the children, whose education is disrupted. I hope that in the case to which my hon. Friend referred those concerned took every possible course of action to bring about a speedy resolution—but I entirely take his point. If the system needs changing to avoid children being out of school for a long period, we shall be happy to learn from that example and review the situation when we review our policy.
    Mrs. Theresa May: We all want to ensure that all children are valued and are given access to education so that they can take advantage of the opportunities that it offers them. Does the Minister accept that many teachers are very concerned about the impact that the Government's insistence on targets for reducing exclusion could have in the classroom? Many feel that to reach the targets pupils will be kept in the classroom against the better judgment of the school and against their own interests and those of others in the school—or will the Government fiddle the figures to reach their target, as we have already seen may be happening on the literacy and numeracy targets?
    In "Excellence in Cities", the Government have proposed that pupil referral units be set up in schools so that pupils can be excluded within the school rather than from the school. Will the Minister confirm that future figures on exclusions will include the number of pupils excluded from the classroom? That would give a true picture of exclusions and not allow the Government to attempt to reach their target merely by fiddling the figures.
    Ms Morris: I am left wondering whether the hon. Lady knows what exclusion means. Under the Conservative

    1163
    Government it meant excluding a child from full-time education and often providing them with as little as two hours' education a week. Part of the money that we have made available this year will be used to provide full-time education for the first time for those excluded from school. I hope that all hon. Members share our wish for children not to be excluded from school.
    I entirely accept that there are occasions when a child needs to be removed from the classroom because of the effect that their behaviour and attitude is having on other children. Our wish is to keep them in the school and in mainstream education. The figures show that a child sent out of school to a pupil referral unit is very rarely reintegrated into the mainstream system. I had hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we are making resources available, under "Excellence in Cities" and other initiatives, to support schools and teachers in their wish to find a speedy way of dealing with children who are having a disruptive effect on the education of others, while keeping them in school and in full-time education, working with them and reintegrating them as quickly as possible.

    Special Measures
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: How many (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools have been taken out of the special measures category since the beginning of the current academic year. [88968]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I am pleased to be able to announce that last term, for the first time, the number of schools going into special measures was exceeded by the number coming out. There were 135 entering special measures and 149 coining out, of which 109 were primary schools, 24 were secondary and 16 were special schools. By the end of this term a further 40 schools will have come out of special measures.
    Mr. Ennis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response and I congratulate the Government on their progress towards achieving their objective of making every school in this country a good school. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Milefield primary school in Grimethorpe in my constituency has recently been taken out of the special measures category? Having visited Grimethorpe, he will be aware of the hardships that it has suffered in recent years, particularly in 1993 when the local pit was deliberately closed as an act of political spite, not economic necessity, by the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating everyone connected with Milefield school, including the headmistress, Judith Hurst, the governors, the staff, the parents and particularly the children, on their recent achievement?
    Mr. Blunkett: We all appear to be able to rejoice at Milefield school coming out of special measures in February. I congratulate all who have made that possible, including the head, the teachers and the parents. When I visited Grimethorpe last Friday, I was deeply impressed by the spirit of self-help and regeneration in the community, and by the older and younger people who were making that possible. It is with that spirit of self-help that the devastation caused by the previous Government will be set aside.

    Early Learning
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What assessment he has made of the level of support from the voluntary sector for the early learning goals. [88969]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority recently published its report which analyses responses to the review of desirable learning outcomes. This shows that over 95 per cent. of respondents from across the range of sectors support the aims of the proposed early learning goals. This includes support from the voluntary sector, at 95 per cent.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Ofsted report, which concluded that children do not suffer emotionally by being encouraged to achieve early learning goals, such as counting to 10 and learning the alphabet? I am sure that most parents would agree with that.
    Ms Hodge: We know from the response to our consultation that most parents do agree with that. It is outrageous to suggest that children who are almost six should not be able to feel comfortable with early numbers and early literacy achievements. We will pursue those early learning goals as a way of raising standards throughout the education system.
    Mr. Don Foster: The Minister's reply notwithstanding, can she explain to the House why, despite the large positive response to which she referred, the Early Childhood Education Forum—which represents nearly every organisation involved in early-years education across the country—has described the proposals as a mess and a muddle? The forum said that the goals were far too prescriptive and that there would be an early introduction of formal education which, as evidence from other countries in Europe suggests, is the wrong approach. As an example, can the Minister explain why she believes it right to have it as a goal that children by the age of six should learn to sit still, rather than that they should be able to jump on to and off a log?
    Ms Hodge: I had better engage the hon. Gentleman about falling off logs—[Interruption]—and sooner rather than later. He was with me when the Select Committee visited Switzerland, one of the countries which engages in a more structured and rigorous approach to early-years education. It is not an issue of choosing between play and learning; nor is it an issue of over-formalising education. We are attempting to ensure—I would want the hon. Gentleman's support—that children at this early stage of their development get those skills that we know are necessary for effective learning. To ensure that that happens, we need to have the structure and rigour of a foundation stage and early learning goals.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Shrewsbury sixth form college on the development of the new learning centre at the heart of the town, which will be open to all,

    1165
    young and old, and which will be completed in September? What help is available from the Government for encouraging more community learning schemes?
    Ms Hodge: A community learning fund will be available to colleges such as the one my hon. Friend described, from which they can get support for the sort of schemes that he would wish to make progress.
    Mrs. Theresa May: The Minister cannot simply cast aside the growing concerns about the increasing formalisation of education for children at a very young age and the increasing pressure being put on them by having to go to primary school at an earlier age and by the early learning outcomes. Is she aware of the article by Dr. Cousins, an adviser to the United Nations on early-years education, who said:
    "The growing use of 'end-product activities' and 'learning outcomes' risked switching many children off learning by the age of five"?
    There is a great risk that learning through play is being cast aside, as evidenced by the closure of 1,500 pre-schools in the past two years and the expected closure of 1,700 this year. Will the Minister confirm that when she claims that hundreds of pre-schools have opened in the past year, that includes instances in which the leader of a pre-school has changed address or an existing pre-school has been taken over by a new leader? Is not this just another case of fiddling the figures?
    Ms Hodge: That really takes the biscuit. The increase in the number of children going into reception classes was entirely due to the nursery voucher scheme introduced by the previous Government. I wonder whether the hon. Lady really thinks it wrong for her own children, by the time they are five, almost six, to be able to count to 10, to know the alphabet, to recognise the M on a McDonald's sign and to be able to deal with simple words. If she wants that for her own children, is it not good enough for other children? Is it not about time that Conservative Members started to show some concern for the three quarters of all four-year-olds currently experiencing their nursery education in the maintained sector?

    Specialist Schools
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What support has been given to specialist schools to enable them to increase their links with the community. [88971]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The criteria for specialist school applicants provide clear guidance on their community role. From September, we will make available additional funding of up to £20,000 a year to support the development of links with other primary and secondary schools and the wider community.
    Mr. Chapman: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the expansion of the specialist schools programme, which includes Plessington high school in my constituency. Is not that evidence of the Government delivering on diversity, just as they are delivering on early years and on class sizes? What evidence is there of successful achievement by pupils in the specialist schools?
    Ms Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and congratulate Plessington on being designated a
    1166
    specialist school. It is indeed an example of the Government modernising the comprehensive principle. There were 200 specialist schools when we took office and we have found additional resources so that there will be 800—one in four secondary schools—by 2002. We have ensured that they share their resources and expertise with other secondary and primary schools in the area so that we can raise standards for all children, not only a few. I know that all hon. Members will welcome that.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The former Lytham St. Anne's high school in my constituency has taken on the specialist role of a technology college, but unfortunately it faces problems with its second round funding application. It was led to believe that £100 per capita would be available in the second phase, but it is now affected by a new policy that appears to impose a cap. Will the Minister assure me that an official from her Department will make early contact with the headmaster, Mr. Michael Payne, to review the situation and get a first-hand briefing on the problem?
    Ms Morris: There are no new criteria. The financial arrangements for the second round were made clear some time ago. The specialist schools receive considerable extra money. There is matched funding of £100,000 for capital work and up to an additional £100,000 to provide for revenue work both for the schools' own students and for others. I have every confidence that the school in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency will use the money to good effect to raise standards for its students and those in the neighbouring schools.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend investigate the unwillingness of the Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire local education authority to match the Government's standards fund to provide literacy classes for parents in my constituency? Those parents will miss out on a valuable source of funding that the Government want to use to raise standards.
    Ms Morris: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that. In the drive to raise literacy standards for children, it is just as important to work with their parents. Much of the money made available by the Government for the literacy strategy should be taken up locally, and I very much regret the action of the Cambridgeshire authority. If it had decided to passport the money that the Government have made available for schools, it would not have had to make the decision that it has made.
    Mr. James Clappison: Given that specialist schools involve a measure of selection, will the Minister take this opportunity to say whether the Government still believe the assurance given by the Secretary of State to the constituents of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) in the by-election there in 1997? That assurance was given in a Labour publication and was headed "Grammars are safe with Labour". The Secretary of State said:
    "There's no threat to the continuance of the grammar schools or to their ethos or their quality. I'm very keen to level up."
    Does that assurance stand?
    Ms Morris: I look forward to the day when the hon. Gentleman asks a question that does not refer to the

    1167
    161 grammar schools, but is about the 24,000 other schools that make up the rest of the English state system. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made the Government's policy quite clear, both before and since the election. They have said that the decision about whether to change the admissions arrangements for grammar schools, in the Wirral and elsewhere, will lie in the hands of parents. The House knows that the last time that many grammar schools closed was under Baroness Thatcher. She did not allow parents to make that decision, but took it herself, in conjunction with local authorities. I should have thought that, on such important decisions, the House would welcome the fact that we are asking those whose lives will most be affected.

    Literacy Hour
    Mr. Colin Burgon: What representations he has received from schools regarding the literacy hour. [88973]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The latest survey shows that 90 per cent. of head teachers welcome the literacy hour and find it extremely valuable and useful in transforming the life chances of children. This week, Ofsted said that the project was an important catalyst in the majority of schools in tackling deep-seated problems with literacy. We are very pleased that the literacy hour is making such a difference. We shall go forward to ensure that, despite the legacy that we inherited, our children will be able to read, write and add up at the age of 11.
    Mr. Burgon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. He will be interested to know that I recently visited St. Edward's primary school in Boston Spa in my constituency, which achieves high standards. Its head teacher, Mark Brennan, was especially keen to stress how the literacy hour will serve to drive up standards further. Several other head teachers in my constituency have said the same, so it is clear that the literacy hour is an outstanding success. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the teachers and the non-teaching assistants who have worked so hard to deliver this good news story for us all?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I shall take this opportunity to do just that, with cross-party support. We thank Lord Putnam, Lloyds TSB and all the others who have worked so hard on the national awards. We also greatly appreciate the fact that, at 7 pm on BBC1 this Sunday, the BBC will publicise the excellence of teachers and the good work that is being done. We can all celebrate what is happening in our classrooms. For the excellent work of our teachers and non-teaching staff we say, "Thank you."
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: There are many thousands of good teachers in our schools, and improvements in the attainment of literacy standards are welcome. However, how can teachers take seriously the Secretary of State's protestations about the importance that he attaches to their professional status when his Department is issuing guidance that tells them how to use every 10 minutes of the literacy hour? Should he not
    1168
    concentrate on setting standards and targets rather than trying to tell teachers how to teach? If he really believes in the professional status of teachers, should he not be leaving teaching to those best qualified to do it?
    Mr. Blunkett: One section of the right hon. Gentleman's party has just denounced targets, and he welcomes targets but not the means by which to reach them. We need a strategy that provides a framework and the resources to back it up, and we have provided £55 million. We need teacher training to make the strategy achievable, and added support for pupils, which youngsters themselves have welcomed, for activities which, in the past, only the rich could afford in the Easter holidays or at weekend. We also need to ensure that teachers have the professional judgment to make appropriate adjustments on the principle of inverse proportion to success. Where intervention is not needed, we will stay out, but where it is needed, we will intervene.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does the Secretary of State recognise the sad irony of our having to address basic literacy as we approach the 21st century when the problem had been identified by Parliament at the end of the 19th century? Children enjoy the literacy hour in my constituency, but does the Secretary of State recognise that both for children with high ability whose reading standards are high and for those who may struggle with reading, some flexibility may be needed in the hour?
    Mr. Blunkett: As part of our development for gifted children and our extension of what is available in the school, rather than outside the neighbourhood, we shall issue specific guidance. This week's Ofsted report said that struggling children, and the average, had benefited greatly from the structure that we have provided. The additional boost to classes had transformed their life chances, and not simply those of the children who were coasting or doing well. Our strategy is helping those who, in the past, would simply have been abandoned to entering adulthood without being able to read and write properly and who would then have formed the cohort so graphically identified by the Moser report a few months ago.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not perfectly obvious that one way in which to assess the efficiency and effect of the literacy hour, and to drive up standards, would be to publish the results of tests held at age seven? Does the Secretary of State recall his feeble answer in yesterday's education debate when I put it to him that he had been hurt by criticism that too much bureaucracy was being placed on schools? Can he explain how it would add to the bureaucracy affecting schools if local education authorities and his Department ensured that those results were published?
    Mr. Blunkett: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question last night. It is a pity that he either did not hear me, or cannot remember it.
    Dr. Lewis: I have just read it in Hansard.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased that the literacy hour has enabled the hon. Gentleman to look up the answer this morning. My answer remains the same. He cannot in one

    1169
    breath ask us to relieve pressure, reduce bureaucracy and spend less on centralised collection, collation and publication of data, while in the next breath demand the opposite.
    Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we can build on the excellent progress that schools are making on literacy and numeracy by using electronic conferencing and the information communication technology that the Government are putting into schools for professional development of teachers?
    Mr. Blunkett: The database that is being compiled and the way in which the standards site is now working are enabling people to spread best practice, and to share what they have found to work well—rather than merely what is offered by the framework. That also provides them with the wherewithal to support integrated learning systems, which are most important for underachievers. I am extremely pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), is taking forward the development of the national grid for learning; a concept that did not even exist as a twinkle in the eye of the Conservatives—never mind the £1 billion that we are spending on it.

    Specialist Schools
    Dr. Howard Stoate: How many schools have been designated specialist schools since May 1997. [88974]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Since May 1997, 196 schools have been designated, bringing the total to more than 400. That is a considerable achievement and puts us on course to reach our target of 800 by 2003.
    Dr. Stoate: I thank my hon. Friend for that most satisfactory reply. In my Dartford constituency, there are three highly popular and successful specialist colleges: Dartford grammar school—a language college; Dartford West school for girls—a technology college; and the Leigh city technology college. Does my hon. Friend agree that a sports college in Dartford would complete the learning community, and would add to genuine choice and diversity for parents in my constituency?
    Ms Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking every opportunity to push the cause of his constituency. There are nine specialist schools in his county. A sports college would complete the set; our vision is that there should be several schools of each specialism in every local authority area. I look forward to receiving applications for specialist sports status, but I know that my hon. Friend would not want me to prejudge such applications.

    New Deal (Disabled People)
    Ms Helen Southworth: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for disabled people. [88975]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The new deal for disabled people, currently being piloted, is making good progress. Although the journey towards work will take many months for many in that client group, I am pleased to report that, by the end of May, a total of 472 people had already been placed in jobs.
    Ms Southworth: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that this is the ideal time for employers in large, medium and small companies to review their recruitment, and to take advantage of the benefits to their companies of employing people with disabilities? I am holding discussions with employers in my constituency. What is my hon. Friend doing to encourage employers, nationally, to seize that opportunity?
    Ms Hodge: We are working with many employers so that they can recruit from the widest possible pool of talent, including people with disabilities. For example, in Manchester, where we are running a disabled person pilot, Centrica has employed 50 people with disabilities, and carers. B and Q is another large employer, which has put disability in the mainstream, in respect both of employment and the supply of goods and services. In the Thurso scheme, we are working with employers; 30 people are now in work, who were—between them—unemployed for a total of 194 years. One third of those people had been unemployed for more than nine years and some of them had been unemployed for more than 20 years. That example demonstrates the importance of the scheme for getting disabled people into work.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: I add the congratulations of Liberal Democrat Members to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his position on the Opposition Front Bench. I am not sure whether he is in the gateway period, but, given the rather high staff turnover in the Conservative education team, perhaps his job is not too long term.
    What is the benchmark for the success of the new deal for disabled people? Given that, before the introduction of the new deal, 21 per cent. of those disallowed incapacity benefit had found full-time jobs within six months, does the Minster accept that the new deal will have to do better than that if it is to be judged a success?
    Ms Hodge: We are being extremely careful in rolling out the new deal for disabled people to ensure that we find out what works before there is a national roll-out. It is a complex area of policy development, given the broad spectrum of disabilities with which we are coping and the real barriers to employment faced by many disabled people. We shall review that benchmark at an appropriate time, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be wrong to set inappropriate targets without learning what works.
    Miss Anne Begg: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the concerns of a number of disabled people: that they will be called in for interview; that they may be unable to gain access to the building; that the adviser will be insensitive to their needs; and that

    1171
    they may be placed in a job that they cannot do. What measures is she taking to ensure that such concerns are properly addressed?
    Ms Hodge: The new deal for disabled people is a voluntary programme. So far, we have managed to engage more than 3,000 people in the programme following their first interviews, and nearly 2,000 are implementing a focused employment action plan.
    We are taking a number of steps to ensure that disabled people see this as an opportunity. For example, the implementation of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will of itself ensure proper access to services for disabled people. The Disability Rights Commission—the legislation to establish it completed its passage through the Commons last week—will also provide a vehicle to support the rights of individuals.
    The opportunity to work is a crucial civil right for disabled people. I say that on the basis of my meetings with disabled people. That opportunity restores their self-esteem, their sense of value and their self-confidence. It is vital, and it is something that we intend to pursue.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: It is common ground in the House that the employment of persons with disabilities requires a good deal of care, sensitivity and, indeed, expense. In the light of what the Minister has said, will she confirm that all personal advisers will have expertise, or access to it, in regard to the particular disabilities—or complex of disabilities—of people seeking employment? Does she share the view of the disability charities that the balance between expenditure on the new deal for the disabled and the new deal for young people may require some re-examination?
    Finally—in the light of what she said about pilot schemes—will the Minister confirm that the new deal for the disabled is on target for the plan to roll out nationally on 1 April next year?
    Ms Hodge: First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I think that this is the first occasion on which I have had the pleasure of engaging him in debate on disability rights, but I welcome him back to the Front Bench—although nowadays it is the Opposition Front Bench.
    Personal advisers receive training in respect of all the new deals, and the disability organisations are involved in the training that we provide for personal advisers in all the employment programmes in which we are engaged. As for the amount of money that has been set aside, the new deal for disabled people is only one part of our employment programme to help disabled people to obtain work. Last year, the Employment Service helped nearly 100,000 disabled people to gain employment.
    Are we on target for rolling this out nationally? Let me repeat what I said earlier: my view is that we must get this right before we roll it out nationally. I will not be stuck with a date if we have not established what works in terms of securing opportunities for disabled people to obtain work.
    Mrs. Theresa May indicated dissent
    Ms Hodge: Let me tell the hon. Lady that I consider this to be one of the most exciting, innovative initiatives that we have launched. It gives disabled people opportunities, and it is not a subject for cheap gibes.

    Jobseekers
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that people receiving jobseeker's allowance meet their responsibilities of looking for work and improving their employability. [88977]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Everyone receiving the jobseeker's allowance signs an agreement on the steps that they will take to find a job. That is monitored fortnightly by the Employment Service. If people do not meet their responsibilities to be available for work and look for jobs, they can lose their benefits, but the overwhelming majority want jobs—and, under the present Government, more and more are obtaining jobs.
    Dr. Ladyman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and commend his efforts to encourage people to find work. May I put it to him, however, that one of the barriers confronting unemployed people who are trying to improve their employability is the fact that so many of the training funds that are available are still focused on people who are already in work, or on employers and their new recruits, rather than on those who are out of work? That strategy is clearly inappropriate in areas of high unemployment such as my constituency. What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about this serious problem?
    Mr. Smith: As we develop the new deal and implement the continuous improvement strategy, we shall involve employers to a greater extent in pre-employment training programmes. Training that is detached from workplace experience is far less effective than training in conjunction with a job or an opportunity for work experience. The evidence from the new deal shows that, as does all the evidence and evaluation of training for work. Employers such as Stagecoach who operate pre-employment training through the new deal are both finding a ready source of good recruits and helping many people who had given up on the prospect of getting a job back into the workplace.

    Utilities (Job Creation)
    Mr. Tim Loughton: What estimate he has made of the number of new jobs created by utility companies since 1 May 1997. [88978]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): The number of employee jobs in the electricity, gas, water supply and telecommunications industries in Great Britain increased by 2,000 to 342,000 between March 1997 and March 1999.
    Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for those figures, but I wonder what work his Department has done to monitor which is more successful in creating real jobs more cost effectively: the utility companies or the new deal. May I refer him to an example from my own constituency? A local electricity company has so far created 500 new jobs in building a new gas-fired power station, despite the Government's moratorium on gas-fired power stations. Half of those 500 new jobs are guaranteed to employ local people, yet, according to the

    1173
    last count, only 67 new jobs have been created under the new deal in the whole of West Sussex. Which is the more effective creator of new jobs?
    Mr. Smith: Of course businesses generate jobs. The task of the new deal is to equip people with the skills to fill those vacancies. Of the net increase of 2,000 jobs in the utilities industries that I just mentioned, 230 are new-deal subsidised, and there will be many more unsubsidised jobs in the total. As for the record of the new deal in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he might like to pay tribute to the efforts of local people, who have secured a 65 per cent. reduction in long-term youth unemployment in his area. That is testimony to the success of the new deal and the way in which it works in partnership with utilities and other businesses.

    Class Sizes (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the average class size for children aged seven to 11 years in Leicestershire. [88979]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): In Leicestershire, the average primary class has fallen from 26.9 to 26.7 between January 1998 and January 1999. The key stage 1 average has fallen to 25.3 compared to 25.8 last year, and key stage 2 classes average 28.0 compared to 27.8 last year. The number of pupils in primary classes of more than 30 has also fallen, from 14,984 to 14,551.
    Mr. Robathan: It is therefore obvious that class sizes are going up for those aged between seven and 11. It is said:
    "the rhetoric is of much greater funding but all the announcements of extra government money for education are meaningless to us in Leicestershire … we do not have enough money to pay for the teachers we need or to improve the learning environment."
    Those are not my words, but those of the head teacher of a school that takes children at 11—Winstanley high school in my constituency. The school needs 1.2 extra teachers for that age group, but it has less money than it had before:
    "It is not convincing for this government…to blame the Local Authority…The SSA is fundamentally inequitable."
    From the tone of her letter, I suspect that that teacher is not a Conservative supporter. She asks:
    1174
    "Why should a child at school in Leicestershire have so much less money spent on her or his education than a child living elsewhere"—
    such as, for instance, the Labour-controlled city of Leicester next door?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman invites me to address the question of Leicestershire. The county's LEA received almost £1.5 million this year to fund 57 extra teachers and build six extra classrooms to enable it to reduce infant class sizes. The funding that we are providing will enable the LEA to reduce the number of infant pupils in large classes from 3,146 in September 1998 to 2,630 in September 1999. The LEA has said that it will implement the policy in full by September 2000.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, when we compare Leicestershire with other parts of the country, we find that the average class size in that county is less than the average for England as a whole, and that Leicestershire has more children in smaller classes than the England average. That is a good record of which the Government can rightly be proud, and I wish that, rather than nit-picking from the edge, he would join us in celebrating that.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the figures that the Minister has announced today. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who, before the election, was opposed to reducing class sizes, has been heard in the House on many occasions denigrating the work that has been done. However, will the Minister take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point about the standard spending assessment and Leicestershire's funding? We have a double problem in that not only is the SSA less than those in other parts of the country—I am sure that the difference will be made up in the coming years—but there is a shortfall of £1.5 million that the LEA has received from the Department but not passed to local schools. Will the Minister ensure that, in future, moneys provided by the Department to the LEA go to schools to ensure that targets are met?
    Mr. Clarke: I take very seriously representations on SSAs because they concern many issues that have been raised in Leicestershire and other parts of the country. I take even more seriously the issue that my hon. Friend mentioned about passporting the money. That is why, about 10 days ago, we published data setting out exactly what every local authority is doing, and that will enable a proper assessment to be made.

Post Office
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Post Office White Paper, which the Government published today.
The White Paper sets an agenda for the Post Office to offer a world-class service for the 21st century. Today's announcement is good news for the Post Office and all those whose livelihoods depend on it, because it can now build for the future with real confidence. It is good news for the Post Office's millions of customers, who will benefit from improved services from a new, modernised Post Office and from greater competition for postal services.
The White Paper brings an end to the uncertainty that has dogged the Post Office over the last decade: uncertainty over its role and place in society; uncertainty over its long-term viability and ownership; uncertainty over the universal service obligation; and uncertainty over the Post Office network. Today, we provide certainty and a new sense of direction and purpose based on modernisation and reform.
Throughout the world, postal markets are changing at an increasingly rapid rate. Globalisation of postal services, the growth of faxes and e-mail, more demanding customers and greater liberalisation of markets are driving change as never before. It is a question not of whether markets will become more competitive, but of how far and how fast that will happen.
The Post Office already faces fierce competition, not only from private sector couriers but from other post offices throughout Europe and from the internet. I know that the Post Office management views change and greater competition as an opportunity, not a threat. It is an opportunity to enter new markets and to overhaul the Post Office's business processes. It is an opportunity for new ventures and new alliances. It is an opportunity to prove that the Post Office can compete against the best in the world, and do so successfully.
To compete effectively and fulfil its potential, however, the Post Office needs greater flexibility. If it is not given greater freedom to expand into wider and international markets, it will find itself confined to a diminishing sector of the postal market, saddled with falling value and shrinking profits.
That is why, in this White Paper, the Government are mapping out the most radical set of reforms since the modern Post Office was created in 1969—reforms that will ensure that the Post Office can provide the services that we need in the 21st century.
The White Paper proposes that the Post Office be subject to effective market disciplines coupled with regulation, and be allowed new commercial freedoms. Operating at arm's length from Government, it will have the freedom to grow and the means to succeed.
Existing mail services will be maintained and, indeed, strengthened as, for the first time, the universal service obligation, including the requirement to deliver to all addresses, will be laid down in law. That will guarantee a uniform tariff for those services. The cost of a stamp will be the same, regardless of the distance of delivery. I am pleased to confirm that the free service for visually impaired people will continue.
1176
Stronger competition and better regulation will work together to keep prices down, and improve service quality and consumer choice. As part of the balanced package that we are bringing forward, greater commercial freedom must be matched with some liberalisation. The White Paper, therefore, proposes a reduction in the monopoly from the present £1 limit to 50p or 150 g with effect from 1 April 2000.
A new independent postal services regulator will promote consumer interests, regulate prices and ensure that the Post Office provides a high level of service to all households and businesses. Consumers' views will be championed by a greatly strengthened Post Office Users National Council, which will have the power to refer poor performance by the Post Office to the regulator and will be able to recommend the levels of fine to be imposed for bad service.
The Post Office Counters network, which plays such a valuable role in local communities, particularly for the less mobile, will be strengthened by our decision to put the Horizon project back on track.
We shall equip all 19,000 post offices with a modern, on-line computer system. It will enable the Post Office to modernise and improve the service that it gives to existing clients and customers, and to win the new business on which the future success of the post office network will depend.
For the first time, the Government will lay down minimum criteria to ensure that everyone in the United Kingdom has reasonable access to post office counter services, particularly in rural parts of the country and areas of social deprivation. The new regulator and the users council will monitor the network against those criteria.
We have agreed arrangements with the Post Office for maintaining a network of Crown offices, which will handle at least 15 per cent. of total counters business. Where appropriate, new Crown offices may be opened.
Although the Government will set out clear objectives for the Post Office, they will not be involved in day-to-day business operations. The Post Office Board will be responsible for running the Post Office, based on a rolling five-year strategic plan, which will be agreed with the Government. Clear duties, real powers and necessary resources to promote consumer interests will be given to the independent regulator and the users council. Annual reports will be published by the Government, the Post Office, the regulator and the users council on their roles and performance during the year.
We shall implement as much of this package as possible through administrative action and secondary legislation. However, primary legislation will be needed, as soon as parliamentary time permits, to complete the full package of reforms.
Primary legislation will be necessary to transform the Post Office into a public limited company. That will underline the new commercial freedoms and help to establish clearly the separate functions of ownership and management, by subjecting the Post Office to the full range of company law. In particular, the directors will owe their duty to the company, not directly to the Government.
There have been suggestions from some quarters that this is part of a plan to privatise the Post Office by stealth. There are no such plans. As we stated in our manifesto—

1177
and we keep to our manifesto commitments—we intend to provide commercial freedom, while retaining the Post Office in public ownership.
I can therefore inform the House that the Act of Parliament to create the Post Office as a public limited company will make it clear that we would not seek to dispose of Post Office shares without further primary legislation.
As my predecessor's statement on 7 December made clear, we cannot ignore the possibility that the Post Office might wish to enter into a joint venture or strategic alliance with another company, and might wish to cement this with a limited sale or exchange of equity. In such cases, it would not always be sensible or practical to seek parliamentary approval through a separate Act of Parliament. However, I can assure the House that any such proposal would be debated and voted on in both Houses of Parliament.
To ensure that the Post Office can compete in the fast-moving domestic and international postal market, we will give the Post Office the greater commercial freedom that it has long desired. That will help the Post Office to be more competitive, and more responsive to market developments and evolving customer demands.
The Government's financial demand on the Post Office will be reduced to match commercial dividend rates. From April next year, it will be cut to 40 per cent. of post-tax profits—more than half the rate at which profits have been removed from the business in recent years. That will be worth an estimated £150 million a year—money that will go directly to the Post Office.
We shall also allow the Post Office to borrow at commercial rates for growth investments—up to £75 million a year without approval from the Government. That will give the Post Office greater freedom to enter into acquisitions, joint ventures, alliances and partnerships. However, the Government recognise that the Post Office has been starved of resources as a result of the previous Government's approach. The Post Office cannot wait until April next year for the additional resources necessary to ensure that it can compete in the modern postal market. We therefore intend to take action immediately.
I am pleased to inform the House that, in this financial year, we shall reduce the Government's financial demand on the Post Office to 50 per cent. of post-tax profits, and we shall also allow borrowing of £75 million. That will provide an immediate cash boost to the Post Office of £175 million. Taken together, our proposals for greater commercial freedom will bring an extra £600 million into the Post Office over the next three years.
I am confident that the White Paper maps out for the Post Office a future that will allow it to compete and win. We have a clear vision of a British Post Office that is world class and will be among the most successful in the world. The White Paper gives the Post Office management the commercial framework that it needs to turn that vision into reality. It is now up to management, in partnership with the work force, to respond to the exciting challenges ahead. The White Paper will put right the neglect of the past and deliver a Post Office fit for the 21st century. I commend it to the House.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I must thank the Secretary of State for making the White Paper
1178
available to me at midday. He will forgive me for saying that I had a sense of déjà vu during his statement; indeed, at one point I had a vision of "Him Tarzan, me Jane."
This long-awaited and much-leaked White Paper has finally seen the light of day after two years of new Labour government. It has been passed like a parcel between the Treasury, which wants to privatise the Post Office, and the trade unions, which still have power in the Labour party. That was shown clearly this week in a letter from the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, which was initially addressed to all Labour Members of Parliament, but was then circulated by them to the Conservatives. The general secretary said:
"I thought the days of finding it necessary to write to Labour MPs about the future of the Post Office had gone … In view of the … promises made by the Labour Party and the government in respect of the future of the Post Office, we looked to a rosy future for the Post Office".
Today, we read in our newspapers of the threatened strike action that has resulted from the Secretary of State's announcement.
The Secretary of State has inherited a dog's breakfast from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who retreated from full privatisation in the face of union opposition, so today we have a third way: Labour will not give the Post Office full commercial freedom, and a question mark remains over the future of rural post offices. The Government could have freed Royal Mail completely, while building in minimal standard safeguards to protect universal next-day delivery. They could have ensured the viability of rural post offices by introducing the planned payment of benefits through swipe cards, but they cancelled that proposal in May. Post Office revenue will drop by 30 per cent. and the Government will, yet again, have dumped the cost of administering the payment of benefits on to the small business sector.
Our Post Office is the most efficient in the world, and it should be given the chance to compete freely, but the White Paper is a mucky compromise between new Labour and old Labour. That is well summed up in a quote in the Financial Times of 2 July from a Minister, who said:
"It's a long way from full liberalisation, which some of us would like."
The Secretary of State said that the White Paper sets the agenda for the Post Office to offer a world-class service for the 21st century. Post Office plc will not do that, as the Government must know. I predict that the Post Office will be fully privatised in the 21st century, because what we have before us today is clearly a temporary compromise that simply paves the way for further developments.
Many questions arise from the White Paper and I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would address as many of them as possible. May I deal first with matters pertaining to the Royal Mail? The plc will be subject to company law, as he said. Will the Government allow it to go bankrupt if it does not manage its financial affairs properly, or will they step in and underwrite the £75 million borrowing facility?
If the Government are prepared to do that—we should like a specific answer—anyone who lends will be lending virtually risk free, which, in other words, is a gilt-edged security. Would not that create a strong competitive advantage over other companies in the marketplace?

1179
[HON. MEMBERS: "Stupid question."] It is not a stupid question. They would have to attract lending, despite all the attendant risks of the marketplace.
The Secretary of State referred to borrowing of up to £75 million with permission. How much will the Post Office be allowed to borrow in addition to that, with approval? Has a limit been set? Will the Government include Post Office plc borrowing in their debt totals, or is that another bit of borrowing that will be tucked away in the figures that nobody can find? Will the existing Post Office Counters network be free to handle any accounts for mail over 50p? With the reduction of the external financing limit to 50 per cent., will the £1 billion cost of Post Office automation be funded from its profits over several years?
What will trigger a share swap or purchase using shares? Can the Secretary of State set out the timetable, given that he has already identified that primary legislation will be needed? If the Post Office were approached for such a deal, the time scale involved in getting legislation through the House would not be conducive to the marketplace. Presumably, he will announce that the Government will make this a priority in terms of Government time and legislation.
May I turn to matters that affect the regional network of post offices? First, do the Government intend to retain Crown offices? How will the automatic credit transfer be funded? Each post office will now be required to set up a connection with a person's bank, so that the benefit can be transferred from the bank to the post office and the individual can collect it in cash. Who will fund the cost of that?
Do the Government intend to deliver more services via the Post Office network? We have recently had the announcement that post offices are to be included in the delivery of passports, and we all know of the crisis that the Government have created in the passport service. Will the Secretary of State identify in the White Paper market opportunity where the Post Office can make up the 30 per cent. revenue drop that it will experience as a result of the automatic credit transfer system? How will people without bank accounts, or those who are prevented by law from holding bank accounts, be able to access cash payments through the Post Office network? What constraints will be applied to post offices after automation in terms of their freedom to use automation to offer other services, for example, ticketing? What constraints will there be in terms of the marketplace and the range of other services that the Post Office would like to be able to deliver?
Mr. Byers: We all listened with interest to find out the Conservative approach to the measures contained in the White Paper. The conclusion that one reached is that the Conservative party wants to move to the immediate privatisation of the Post Office.
Mrs. Browning indicated assent.
Mr. Byers: I see that the hon. Lady is nodding in agreement. I am sure that many will note that with interest. The Government's package is balanced. It matches commercial freedoms with liberalisation, but within the public sector. We believe that is the correct approach to take.
1180
The hon. Lady asked about the power to borrow money. The borrowing of up to £75 million a year will not require Government approval. Government approval will be necessary for borrowing in excess of that sum. We make it clear that the Government will approve Post Office borrowing for investment cases that are consistent with the strategic plan, commercially robust and pose no undue risk to the taxpayer. That is the approach that we shall adopt.
The hon. Lady asked what would happen if the Post Office became bankrupt. That is an interesting approach for the Conservatives to take, because it was under their stewardship that the Treasury took 93p in the pound from Post Office profits. It is worth reminding people of that fact.
We believe that we should have the package that we are putting before the House today. It ensures the universal service below 50p—the same price for delivery anywhere in the country—and there needs to be compensation for achieving that desirable objective. We make no apology for putting in place the policies that will achieve that particular objective.
Crown offices will be established. As I said in my statement and as the White Paper states, we have agreed with the Post Office that 15 per cent. of all Post Office counters transactions should go through Crown Offices.
It is worth stressing that, for the first time in law, criteria will be established on the availability and access to post office network facilities. Those criteria will be monitored by the regulator and the new, more powerful consumers council. We expect the post office network to offer more facilities than would have been available through the benefit payment card under the Horizon project. The new Horizon project that we are developing with interested partners will provide more facilities and services through the post office network.
The response of the Conservative official spokesperson was to take a negative approach. There was no welcome for the additional £600 million for the Post Office; no welcome for the commitment to a universal service; no welcome for the additional powers to consumers and no welcome for effective regulation. That should come as no surprise. The Conservative Opposition want to wash their hands of responsibility for the Post Office, and to go for privatisation. That is not our approach. We want a balanced package, with commercial freedom and liberalization—a Post Office fit for the 21st century.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement—not least because it bears more than a passing resemblance to the original proposals in December? I want to probe him on two areas of concern to me. First, with regard to commercial freedoms for the Post Office, will he confirm that the arrangements for the procedures governing the Government's approval of Post Office borrowing remain precisely as set out by the Government last December?
Secondly, on the speed of implementation of these changes, he is right in saying that the Post Office is in great danger of slipping behind the tough international competition. It is extremely important that there is no undue delay in implementing these changes to enable the Post Office to compete, flourish and grow its business in the future. What can be achieved by means of secondary,

1181
European-related legislation, so that the framework of competition can be put in place without waiting for primary legislation, which I suspect may be some time in coming forward?
Mr. Byers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm words of support for the proposals, which build on much of the good work that he carried out as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), was also Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and as she chairs the Cabinet Committee dealing with future legislation, I hope that, when it comes to the need to find a parliamentary slot for primary legislation, she will be persuaded by the strong case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).
However, progress can be made without primary legislation. We can introduce further liberalisation through an order, and we can develop the powers of the regulator through secondary legislation, although not with the full range of rights and responsibilities that we shall ultimately provide. Thus some steps can be taken.
On the important point of commercial freedom, I confirm that the mechanism referred to by my right hon. Friend remains unchanged. The procedure that he agreed when he was Secretary of State remains in place. In addition, the criteria that will be used when considering borrowing for investment will have just three aspects: it will have to be consistent with the strategic plan, commercially robust, and pose no undue risk to the taxpayer. I hope that that clarifies the position for my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Colin Breed: First, may I add my thanks to the Secretary of State for his courtesy in providing a copy of the statement at 12 o'clock for us to see?
I broadly welcome proposals which, for some time, the Liberal Democrats have been promoting and calling for—a balance between providing greater commercial freedom and continuing to maintain, into the foreseeable future, the Post Office within public ownership.
I agree with the comments on the delays that could be involved. Clearly, if three Secretaries of State have had a hand in the matter, there will already have been considerable delay in bringing forward the proposals. If we are to wait any length of time before legislation comes before the House—clearly, opportunities have already been lost—new opportunities that may be open to the Post Office will not be taken advantage of, so it is essential that there are no further delays.
It is a balanced package, but it is also rather timid. For example, greater commercial freedoms are available now—they are certainly greater than before—but they are nowhere near as great as they could, or even should, be. On the borrowing limits that are being provided, £75 million may seem a lot of money, but, for a business that is turning over some £7 billion, it cannot be seen as a particularly huge borrowing requirement. If a business that was turning over £7 billion was likely to go bust by borrowing £75 million, something would clearly be wrong. Therefore, the borrowing limit that might be available to the Post Office of £75 million per year is not excessive.
May I make two other points—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the question?"] May I question two other points? The question of Crown post offices is rather confusing.
1182
They are to undertake 15 per cent. of the business and some new ones may open, but am I to understand that some could close and that there may be consolidation—some Crown post offices that are currently open may close?
In terms of the other post offices, for so long, small sub-post offices have been confined to the back of newsagents and other small stores, stuck in a corner next to a cupboard, where there is hardly any promotion. If post offices are to have new facilities and new services, and are to promote themselves in a new way, can we see a return to high street post offices with proper sign posting, to which people can go without meandering through books, knickers and everything else to buy their stamps? Post offices should be prominent on our high streets, not concealed in small stores.
I hope that, in that way, the Post Office will become a proud institution again, ready to serve its public with new services and new facilities, and will not again seek to hide itself in other places.
Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind him that I heard only one question, so I hope that he will not take long to answer. I remind the House and any Member whom I call that I want a direct question to the Secretary of State. Many hon. Members are trying to get in on the statement. I want brisk questions and brisk answers, please.
Mr. Byers: I am tempted to say that, for some customers, having to go through books and knickers might be a unique selling point for the future of the Post Office network, but, on the specific question that I did hear, which was in relation to the £75 million approval, it is not a limit. A total of £75 million can be borrowed without approval. Over and above that, there can be increased borrowing, but it will require Government approval.
An arrangement was arrived at between my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and me when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We agreed that nearly £300 million should be used to acquire German Parcels after the 7 December statement. That is a good illustration of how a useful alliance for a purchase acquisition can be progressed. It was a good example of how, with a fair degree of haste, because it was an important commercial decision, we could provide £300 million, or thereabouts, to allow an acquisition to take place. That will still be the case, but we will put it on a firmer footing. The post-tax dividend will be reduced; £75 million will be allowed without approval; and, over and above that, amounts of more than £75 million will be subject to Government approval. I think that that is a balanced way forward.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statement that he has made today—which had all been fully released, as usual, by spin doctors and in broadcasts—will be seen by many people as stage 1 of the privatisation that the Conservative party wants; that the Post Office is the cheapest, most efficient, most popular and most advanced post office in the world; that it is a world-class post office; that, on its own, it invented the giro and introduced the national data processing service; and that the Post Office's greatest enemy has been the Treasury? From the very beginning, the Treasury has claimed that economic investment in the Post Office

1183
had been treated like welfare benefits, and has prevented the Post Office from having freedom which it should have had in its current position.
Given the recent statements, which indicate deep hostility to the public sector—that has been noticed by people—is the Secretary of State aware that it is not hard to believe that this is the first stage of full privatisation of the Post Office? He cannot rely on people being persuaded by the arguments that he has made today; as an old Postmaster General, they are not very persuasive to me.
Mr. Byers: There are no grounds for complacency on the Post Office. It is currently providing an excellent service—I made that point in my initial statement—but, in a dramatically and rapidly changing world, the status quo is simply not an option for the Post Office. There will have to be change, modernisation and reform. Under the proposals that I have outlined today, the Post Office will become a plc, but one that is under public ownership. That meets the manifesto commitment on which I stood, and on which my right hon. Friend stood in the 1997 general election: greater commercial freedom for the Post Office, coupled with liberalisation, but within public ownership. That is exactly what the White Paper delivers.
If, at any future date, there is a desire for the sale of shares, the matter will have to come back separately to the House for a debate and decision, when hon. Members on both sides will be able to vote on it. Today, we are delivering on our manifesto commitment to commercial freedom under public ownership. That is the way forward for the Post Office, as outlined in the White Paper.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Unlike the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), may I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on taking this historic first step on the route to privatisation? When I was working in the Department of Trade and Industry for my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), old Labour Members were united in their opposition to such a step. Now, by his statement, the Secretary of State has converted them. Will he confirm that the statement goes far further than the previous Government's plans—we were talking about making only the Royal Mail a plc, whereas the Government propose to make the entire Post Office a plc?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that there is no business of that type anywhere in the world that has not sought, and is not seeking, international strategic alliances? Therefore, is it not inevitable that some shares will have to be sold? It would be much fairer to the House if he would confirm that now.
Finally, as the Secretary of State has done so much to burnish his radical Thatcherite credentials, would he like to join the No Turning Back group of Conservative Members?
Mr. Byers: There is—
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Just say yes.
Mr. Byers: There is a serious issue here, and I am not quite sure that the hon. Member for Gainsborough
1184
(Mr. Leigh) took it quite as seriously as perhaps he should. We have based the plc and public ownership model for the Post Office on one that works very well in other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, Finland and Sweden. The post offices in those countries have flexibility and commercial freedom, and are able to work in the wider national interest. We believe that Britain's Post Office can do so as well. Clearly, in due course, there will be consideration of strategic alliances and acquisitions—this is a rapidly changing world—and I specifically mentioned those considerations in my statement.
I reassert that there are no plans to dispose of shares. If legislation is brought to the House in the near future, it will contain no such proposals. Such a Bill would make it clear that, if there were any intention to do that, it could not be done by stealth. The matter would have to come back to the House for parliamentary approval.
Mr. Alan Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have argued for the past seven years that it is possible for the Post Office to be given the commercial and financial freedom that it needs while remaining entirely publicly owned, this is a bit of a red letter day? I was pleased that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) reminded us that the Conservatives were one-dimensional on the issue when they were in government: they wanted not only to privatise the Post Office but to break it up. Fortunately, they retreated from that and we are able to take the Post Office forward.
I have some concerns about the reduction in the monopoly limit. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will consider linking that reduced monopoly limit to the retail prices index, so that it does not just wither on the vine and erode over time? Secondly, will he ensure that there is a proper study with all interested parties before any further erosion of the reserved area that may be caused by European Union directives?
Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the main thrust of the proposals in the White Paper. Given his considerable personal knowledge of the Post Office and the postal service, it is helpful for the House to have his views on the proposals. I shall consider whether the reduced monopoly limit of 50p should be linked to the RPI. I think that it would be appropriate to do so. Any study into the impact and effects of liberalisation will be the responsibility of the regulator. We believe that it is appropriate to liberalise by reducing the monopoly to 50p, given the greater commercial freedom that we are introducing. The figure is pitched at a level that will ensure that the Post Office can still meet its universal service obligation. We want to increase liberalisation, but still deliver on that important commitment.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In replying to my question, will the Secretary of State put spin and hype to one side? As a Back-Bench constituency Member of Parliament, I am concerned about the efficiency of the postal services and the cost and reliability of deliveries. My constituency has a large rural area, parts of which are remote. Will he guarantee to me that his proposals will ensure that all my constituents, even in the remotest areas,

1185
will get a daily delivery service and that the post office facilities currently available will not be reduced in any way, but will, hopefully, be increased and improved?
Mr. Byers: When hon. Members have had a chance to see the full range of details in the White Paper, they will see that our proposals will deliver an improved service. I can confirm that the Post Office will be legally required to guarantee, on each working day of the week, a daily delivery to every address in the country, wherever it might be. Whether it is in Macclesfield or Manchester, Newcastle or Newquay, the provision will be the same. As has been said, whether it is Skye or Southwark the same obligation will apply. That will be in law for the first time. That is a good example of how we are moving forward and improving the service provided by the Post Office.
The network of counters is a real issue in rural communities. It was highlighted earlier this week in a study by the Women's Institute. For the first time, we are providing criteria for access to the facilities of the post office network. For the first time, consumers will be able to object to, and oppose, any proposal to remove such a facility from their community. We are building in new powers.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Minister on their hard work over such a long time. This has been a long-awaited development, and the complexity of the deal is evident. Will the regulator be involved in the consideration of the universal service obligation and the network of post offices across the country? What is my right hon. Friend's view on public pay in the public sector? Will the pay arrangements of the Post Office be part of the new independent structure?
Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend. Much of the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—of which he is Chairman—relating to the Post Office has informed the White Paper that we are presenting today. We thank him and his Committee for that work.
We are not opting for an individual to be a named regulator; we are adopting a recommendation, with which we agree, from the review of the utilities and telecommunications regulators: that it is better to have a commission of perhaps five or six people, with someone acting as its chairman. That is the way in which we intend to regulate the Post Office. The commission will be responsible for overseeing the universal service obligation and the network.
As we move to give greater commercial freedom to the Post Office, it is important that we recognise also the social obligations that go with the Post Office in Great Britain. Having a national network is one of those social obligations that we are now consolidating as a result of the measures in the White Paper.
The Post Office will still be part of the public sector pay remit. However, we have agreed with the Treasury that there will be opportunities for greater flexibility and for incentives to be offered to people working in the postal service in the new situation in the years ahead.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Given that there are 37 fewer sub-post offices open in Scotland now than
1186
in 1997—some of the closures are temporary—does the Secretary of State agree that any extra money from the Treasury should be channelled towards financial incentives for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, whose earnings, at about £2.70 an hour, are well below the minimum wage? It is therefore difficult to get people to staff those sub-post offices. I am particularly concerned about sub-post offices in rural areas. Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that they will continue to pay out pensions and benefits? Many of the little villages in my area are 30 or 40 miles from a bank and there is no public transport.
Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady makes an important point. Clearly, I cannot guarantee that every post office network facility will remain in existence for the foreseeable future. However, this year, for the first time, £175 million extra has been made available to the Post Office, and that money could be used to enhance the network system. As the hon. Lady rightly said, there will be opportunities to attract people to run post offices who might not have been prepared to do so in other circumstances.
As a practical demonstration of our inclusive approach, representatives of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are, for the first time, forming a working group within my Department to plan the future of the network. They are in at the ground level, and I am sure they will be arguing hard to get a better deal from the Post Office. I am pleased that, as a result of the extra £175 million this year and the £600 million over the next three years, the Post Office will now have the resources to deal with matters that are regarded as a priority.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am sure that no one disagrees with the ambition that the Post Office should be as up to date as possible and ready to enter whatever new markets it likes, but why does it have to become a public limited company to do so?
Mr. Byers: There are several reasons. A public limited company is a business organisation that is recognised by the people who deal with these matters. It is a tried and tested model that works very well in postal services in other countries. In Sweden and Finland, the plcs in public ownership are very effective and progressive. The Swedish post office has just announced that it is to give a free e-mail address to every citizen in Sweden. The post offices in Australia and New Zealand are rapidly moving ahead, embracing new technology.
Perhaps most importantly, having plc status makes a clear distinction between the rights and duties and responsibilities of the directors. They will no longer be directly accountable to the Government; their primary responsibility will be as directors of the Post Office. A clear distinction between management and ownership will be important in the years ahead. I give my colleagues who have reservations about plc status the assurance that if, at some future date, there is any consideration of a disposal of the shares, there will be a separate opportunity for hon. Members to vote on that.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: There have been several closures of small rural post offices in my constituency. One of the biggest problems for the Post Office is recruiting new people to run small sub-post offices. Will the Secretary of State direct the

1187
Post Office to pay the national minimum wage to sub-postmasters for the hours for which they are contracted?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman opposed the minimum wage legislation, so he will know that all employees are covered by the national minimum wage but self-employed people are not. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is some confusion in his thinking. We are giving the Post Office commercial freedom, so it will not be my responsibility or that of any future Secretary of State to give it orders or instructions. We are no longer in that game. Commercial freedom means allowing the Post Office to manage within the strategic plan that we agree with it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend advocate that, when we draw up our manifesto proposals for the next general election, privatisation should not figure among them? Did he consult the trade unions, did they agree, and will any job losses arise from his statement? Does he have any scars on his back?
Mr. Byers: Having been a member of the Labour party for 26 years, I have many scars on my back, as I am sure my hon. Friend also has. The manifesto will be determined not by me but through the Labour party's normal policy-making process. The trade unions were involved in discussing the White Paper and how we can take the Post Office into the next century. They will express their views on the details that it contains. I hope that when they have studied it and seen the balanced approach that we are taking, they will feel that we have made the right decision.
I am sure that no job losses will arise from the recommendations that we are making today, for the simple reason that we are providing extra money for the Post Office. Hon. Members should not forget that we are providing an extra £175 million for the Post Office immediately, this year, and £600 million over the next three years. I hope that more people will be employed as a result of today's announcement.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked about the justification for continued public ownership of the shares, and the Secretary of State has laid great stress on the new regulatory framework that he intends will ensure the continuation of universal service and protect against the abuse of monopoly by Post Office plc. When he considers whether the shares should remain in public ownership, will he speculate about the arguments that might be advanced by the hon. Member for Bolsover that they should? Will he find those arguments persuasive, or would it not be a better use of taxpayers' resources to realis0e their investment in Post Office plc? Would not that enable investment to be made in the creaking infrastructure of transport and schools, for which the taxpayer is directly responsible?
Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman used to be a Treasury Minister, and his was one of the dead hands that used to lie on the Post Office. I do not know whether it was under his stewardship that 93p in the pound was taken away from Post Office profits. I am not in the business of
1188
speculating about the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may put forward. He will make those arguments in his own way, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what they might be.
Mr. Derek Foster: In celebrating the world-class success of the Post Office as a public business, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on granting it greater commercial freedom in the public sector? That is essential for the Post Office's competitiveness in Europe. Is he aware that he has given enormous heart to those of us who have always believed that the public service can be modernised and made fit for the challenges of the 21st century, without the headlong rush to privatisation?
Mr. Byers: I thank my right hon. Friend, who I know follows these issues extremely closely. The proposals in today's White Paper are balanced and do not permit a diversionary argument about privatisation of the Post Office. I hope that I have made it clear, through the establishment of a public limited company for the Post Office, that privatisation is not the Government's objective. We want to give the Post Office greater commercial freedom in the public sector. That was our 1997 manifesto commitment, and the proposals in the White Paper will deliver it.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Secretary of State say why he thinks that the Germans are fully privatising their post office? Might the reason be that they want it to be a leading global player? How does he think our Post Office will be able to compete with that?
Mr. Skinner: I thought the hon. Gentleman was against the Germans.
Mr. Byers: We managed to take a bit of the private sector German Parcels business into public ownership a few months ago. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will welcome that example of the public sector taking over some of the private sector.
The decision about the German post office was a matter for the German authorities. Our job is to determine what is best for Britain. We believe that we can build on the Post Office that we have, and that a plc in public ownership is the best model to achieve the challenging objectives set out in today's White Paper.
Mr. John McWilliam: Why was the idea of an independently owned public corporation dropped? Was it because the Treasury operates under rules drawn up in the 1920s and 1930s? Is not it about time that it was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, so that we do not have this nonsense again when attention turns to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which is the next target? Finally, did my right hon. Friend see the expression on the faces of Conservative Members when he announced the formation of a plc for the Post Office? It reminded me of the look that my dog has when I leave the fridge door open.
Mr. Byers: We did consider in detail the arguments for establishing an independent publicly owned company. Much research has been done into that model, but we

1189
found fundamental weaknesses over management and ownership issues and lines of responsibility, and we fell back on a well-known type of business organisation—the plc. We knew that concerns would be raised about public ownership, so we have given the guarantees clearly set out in the White Paper. I assure my hon. Friend that the IPOC model was considered in detail, but that we felt that it was not appropriate.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Secretary of State not creating a rather messy hybrid, a sort of pre-privatisation Patco, which has the potential to abuse its dominant position? Can he reassure other communications businesses that the greater commercial freedom which he is offering the Post Office will not be fully exercised until the regulatory framework is in place?
Mr. Byers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we need to establish the regulator to make sure that there is no abuse of the monopoly position in the area in which there is no competition. Where items cost more than 50p or weigh more than 150 g, there will be competition, and the regulator will have no role. We hope to establish the regulator by April next year to ensure that there is no abuse of the type outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that in guaranteeing the crucial network of post offices across the country, he will make it a requirement that the level and range of services must be maintained? Services must be protected for the future and developed as the Post Office changes in its new format.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am keen to establish a post office network that does not deal only with payment of benefits, which it does effectively, or even with extensions to passports—it should offer a range of services not currently offered. As part of our agenda for modernising Government, we should see the network of 19,000 post offices as a key to local delivery of important Government services. A working party has been set up in my Department to ensure that we modernise the network and that new technology will be made available. We have to make sure that extended services are available to meet the needs of people locally, to support local communities and to ensure the future of the network.
Mr. Peter Brooke: May I ask a London question? Of the 12 postal districts in my constituency, the quality of
1190
service in two is markedly inferior to that in the other 10, for reasons, I believe, of recruitment difficulty. Will the competitive and commercial freedom and the pay flexibility of which the Secretary of State has spoken allow the new Post Office to address those problems so that, under the universal obligation, we may have equality of standards and services for customers in the same marketplace?
Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point which affects London, other cities and, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, rural communities. We need to ensure that the guaranteed level of service is met. Under the White Paper's provisions, the Post Office can be fined for failure to achieve that service. However, we want the service to work, rather than have to apply fines when it does not. When the Post Office considers remuneration packages, it will also consider how to retain and recruit postal workers, particularly in areas such as London where the Labour market is not as flexible as in other parts of the country.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Many of us still have to be convinced that the public limited company route down which my right hon. Friend is taking the Post Office is the right route. Who will exercise the role and responsibilities of shareholders? Is this to be a people's company, and if so, how will that be done? Will he confirm that his proposals mean that every piece of capital investment of less than £75 million a year may require Treasury approval, while every capital investment of more than £75 million certainly will require Treasury approval? What has happened to the historic surpluses of the Post Office, amounting to almost £2 billion? Under his proposals, they seem to be parked at the Treasury.
Mr. Byers: I look forward to convincing my hon. Friend about the merits of today's proposals. To clarify matters: for the £75 million borrowing power, no further approval will be required; over and above that, approval will have to be obtained. As for the historic surpluses, they will be retained by the Treasury, but, as we have made clear, there will be changes to the balance sheet in two or three years time as we put the Post Office on to a more commercial footing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House
1.35 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): MONDAY 12 JULY—Motion to approve the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Estimates Day [2nd Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of schools in England, followed by a debate on transport policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Motion to approve Ways and Means resolution on the Food Standards Bill.
TUESDAY 13 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No 2) Bill.
Proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1999.
WEDNESDAY 14 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill[Lords].
Remaining stages of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Trustee Delegation Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 15 JULY—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 16 JULY—Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order.
There will be a debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will understand that there remains some uncertainty as to the business for the week commencing 19 July, but it will include:
MONDAY 19 JULY—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 23 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Monday 19 July, there will be a debate on sectors and activities excluded from the working time directive in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Monday 19 July 1999:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: (a) 13526/98; (b) Unnumbered EM submitted by DTI dated 18 May 1999. Sectors and Activities excluded from the Working Time Directive;
1192
(c) Unnumbered EM. Submitted by DTI dated 21 June 1999. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 34-vi and HC 34-xxiv (1998–99)]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and for the hint as to business for the following week.
In view of the interest in the White Paper on Post Office reform, on which a statement has just been made, may we have a debate, in Government time, on the important reforms contained in that White Paper?
On Monday, when we debate the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, will the Foreign Secretary be speaking, so that he can apologise to the Select Committee for the way in which its reports were treated, and so that he can respond to the section of the report that rejected his arguments? Will there be a Government response to the recommendations on the ministerial code, in order to avoid any recurrence of the unhappy events of last February?
On Wednesday, in Prime Minister's Question Time, may we now split the time between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister so that the House can hear both sides of the arguments on the performance of those working in the public sector, on transport policy, on co-operation with the Liberal Democrats, and on all the other issues about which the two right hon. Gentlemen disagree?
The right hon. Lady has not announced the Second Reading of the Railways Bill, which was published yesterday, and which will now, presumably, hit the legislative buffers. Has she read today's Financial Times, which refers to the
"Railways Bill, which could become law before the Queen's Speech in November"?
Will she dismiss that absurd piece of spinning by the Deputy Prime Minister's Department? Will she comment on the Financial Times statement that:
"The Bill is important to Mr Prescott's political credibility given his earlier failure to win legislative time."?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made it clear that we want to facilitate the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill, to be taken on Tuesday. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House when it will be published?
Friday's debate on the policing of London will be preceded by a motion on the Northern Ireland order. We understand the reasons for that, but may we have extra time for the debate so that it is not curtailed? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Home Secretary will be speaking for the Government?
The right hon. Lady has not announced a debate on public expenditure. Can she, however, confirm the undertaking that has been given that such a debate will take place before the House rises for the recess? May I also renew my plea for a debate on the report of the royal commission on long-term care?
Before the end of the Session, will we be able to debate the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was published in March?
Finally, is the right hon. Lady able to give us a date for the state opening of Parliament?
Mrs. Beckett: I make that 10 questions, but I will do my best to answer them.

1193
I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Post Office in the near future, but we have announced the provision of Opposition time, which could be used to discuss a number of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would speak in the debate on the motion to approve the eighth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The answer is no. The Government have already made clear, and will make clear again, their response to the proposals on the ministerial code. That does not require any formal statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to arrange for a "script" to be discussed by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me simply tell him that, when the leader and deputy leader of the Labour party say—as they do—that they agree with each other and admire each other's progress, they go on working together. When that happens in the Tory party, one of those involved is sacked.
The Bill to set up the new Strategic Rail Authority has been published, and will no doubt be presented to the House in due course. I cannot account for the story in the Financial Times, but it does not sound to me as though that story was spun by anyone: it sounds as though someone got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
I think I am right in saying that we hope and anticipate that the Northern Ireland Bill will be published on Monday. As for Friday's debate, of course I appreciate the importance of the debate on policing in London, and I undertake to reflect its importance if the Northern Ireland order takes up time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, in fact, be speaking in the debate.
I have not lost sight of the request for a day's debate on public expenditure. I shall endeavour to provide one before the recess, although I cannot undertake to provide a debate on long-term care. I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and I will bear it in mind—although, as he will appreciate, we have much to deal with before the recess, and I can only undertake to bear his request in mind.
I apologise to the House: I hoped to be able to give a date for the state opening. Things are still in the melting pot, but I will give a date as soon as possible, and I hope that that will be shortly.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it intended that the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement next week on the ambiguity, or loophole, in the law relating to the donation of kidneys for transplant? Is it not totally unacceptable, in any circumstances, for racist conditions to be attached to such donations? What has occurred has caused a great deal of concern in the House and in the country. Moreover, it could lead to the imposing of religious conditions in, say, Northern Ireland, in regard to Catholics and Protestants. The Secretary of State has already expressed his dismay about what has happened. I hope that it will be possible for him to make a statement in the House very soon.
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend says, my right hon. Friend has already made clear how appalled he is—and I think the whole House is appalled—by what has
1194
been reported. An investigation into how this came about was launched immediately, and we intend to ensure that it never happens again. As everyone has said, the setting of such conditions is unacceptable. I fear that I cannot tell my hon. Friend how soon the results of the investigation will be available, or whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in a position to make a statement before the recess; but I can assure him that the matter is being looked into, with a view to ensuring that this does not happen again.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Before every recess, there tends to be a big build-up of potential statements to the House. That is understandable and it is right. Obviously, while the House is sitting it should be given information if that is possible. Madam Speaker has, on a number of occasions, expressed concern about the way in which information is given to the House by Ministers, and how often—sadly—it appears to be pre-empted by statements made through the media, press conferences or other means.
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to one specific example, which causes great concern? In yesterday's debate, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
"when an MMC report contains commercially sensitive information, it is not the subject of a statement to the House, since the City would have notice of such a statement's being made and that might not be appropriate. That practice has been adopted by successive Governments."—[Official Report, 7 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 1091.]
That is patent nonsense, because the City and everyone else was given notice that a statement was to be made by means of a planted question on the Order Paper on Tuesday, so they had far more notice that the report was to be released. The result of the present practice is that the City is given more information in advance than is necessary, because a statement is advertised to the House only at 1 o'clock, which gives us extremely short notice.
Will the Leader of the House urgently examine that practice, not only as it applies to Monopolies and Mergers Commission reports, but in the context of the general procedure for making statements to the House? Will she come back to the House within the next week to inform us of how she intends to ensure that the practice better serves the House, our constituents and the country?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I am afraid not. I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but, as he made clear yesterday, it is not merely a matter of a statement being made, but the content of the statement and the impact of it. As he also pointed out yesterday, the practice he followed is the one that has been identified by successive Governments as being the best way through that difficult area. Indeed, it has been followed by successive Governments for good reason.
Mr. Jim Marshall: As I am a delegate from this House to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, may I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an urgent debate—hopefully before the new Session of Parliament in November, if not before the recess—on the future of the WEU? She will be aware that the Cologne summit resulted in the suggestion that certain of the institutions of the WEU should be folded into the second pillar of the European Union in a way that foresees

1195
no continuing function for the Parliamentary Assembly. If that procedure is followed, it will lead to an increased democratic deficit, especially in foreign affairs, within the European Union, so will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on the matter?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of my hon. Friend's long and distinguished service with the WEU. As he says, an important proposal has been made that would have considerable future impact. I am not sure that I can undertake to find time for such a debate before the recess, although I hear what he says about wanting to explore the implications before the parliamentary Session closes. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who I know will share my hon. Friend's concern.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Of the 37 questions for Question Time today, only one on higher education won through. Will the Leader of the House contemplate an early debate on higher education, so that we do not give that most important sector of our society the impression that the House is neglecting it?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that I can find time for such a debate in the near future. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view—I am sure that the House does too—that it is a pity that, sometimes, the unintended effects of our random selection procedure mean that an area of discussion does not get its fair share of attention. However, he will have noted that we have identified time for Opposition days, so perhaps he will lobby his right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House on that subject.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have today announced a ban on the use of lindane, a powerful insecticide used in farming to treat seeds? She will be aware of the campaign against the use of that carcinogenic substance, which can cause all sorts of problems, including hormone disruption, nervous system damage and birth defects.
There is also growing evidence linking lindane exposure to increased incidence of breast cancer. I congratulate the Government on their action, but will the Secretary of State come to the House next week to make a formal announcement of the ban so that we can raise issues pertaining to it?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in and campaigned on that matter, as have others in the House, for a very long time, and I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I do not anticipate that there will be, in the near future, a particular debate in which that issue can be aired. However, I am mindful that the pre-recess debates will take place, and my hon. Friend may be fortunate in catching the eye of the Chair on that occasion.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that next week there will be a lot of business affecting Northern Ireland, but can we have an urgent debate on the
1196
role of the Parades Commission in Northern Ireland, where nationalists and Orange people have criticised it? I trust that the Government will not follow the silly middle argument that the commission must be all right because both sides are criticising it. The commission is the only semi-judicial body that I am aware of that changes its reasons for determinations and, perhaps following the House and the Government, leaks from the top down before determinations are made. Three days in advance of a determination, its agents are telling folk what is happening.
That is a serious matter and one that we are aware of in my constituency, where some years ago I offered an olive branch to those from the Lower Ormeau, as they call themselves, but it was immediately rejected. They constantly say that nobody wants to talk to them, but they, like those in Portadown, have also refused to talk.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on that matter, although I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about it. I recognise that there will always be difficulty about the role of the Parades Commission, which has an extremely difficult job that it strives to discharge impartially. It is, of course, a key part of its role to try to get both parties to reach an accommodation—I recognise that the hon. Gentleman referred to such efforts a moment ago—and it is only when they do not do so that the commission has to step in. When such a body operates in those circumstances, where there has already been a failure to agree, its role is bound to be a difficult one, and it is bound to come under criticism, as it does on occasion, from both sides.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Was my right hon. Friend being deliberately vague about the Opposition day? I got the impression that the Tories have not been able to come up with a subject for their Opposition day.
Mr. John Bercow: Nonsense.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Spoilt for choice.
Mr. Skinner: I heard a cry of "Nonsense" from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is already in the gateway, but I have to tell him that in all my years in the House I have never heard of an Opposition being unable to say within two or three days of a debate what the subject of it will be. I would hazard a guess that if the Government were declaring that they were unable to tell us what was on the agenda next week, there would be an almighty row from the Tories. Are they unable to tell us about their debate because the Leader of the Opposition is away trying to deal with the problem whether to join the fascist group in Europe or the federal group and, if the latter group is chosen, trying to get an opt-out clause so that the Tories can join the federal group but not really be federal?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that my hon. Friend has indeed identified the nub of the problem, as he so frequently does. I am unable to give the House details of what the Opposition will debate because they have not decided that. I have not explored the precise reason for that indecision, but as my hon. Friend says, it is extremely unusual, particularly for a party that is always alleging

1197
that people do not treat the House with enough respect. The fact that we do not know what the Conservative party intends to debate may even be unprecedented.
As for the issue of the Conservative's half in, half out membership of the European People's party, I suspect that it will be a rich seam of difficulty that my hon. Friend can mine in the future.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the Leader of the House find time—perhaps in the autumn—for a debate on the hosiery and knitwear industry? Is she aware that it faces very severe difficulties at the moment, as the closure of mechanics' courses in my constituency testifies? Despite efforts to diversify and despite tremendous work, the industry faces a decline, and there is a general feeling among workers that although the Government are prepared to support the motor industry, they ignore petitions such as the one that I presented to Parliament recently on behalf of the hosiery and knitwear industry.
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly cannot undertake to find time before the recess for a debate, although I am aware of the great concern that exists in the hosiery and knitwear industry. No Member in the House likes to hear of employment being lost, or of companies in difficulty. The hon. Gentleman knows, however, that there have been long-standing problems in that industry, and the Government have striven to work with it to secure improved opportunities and prosperity.
We shall have pre-recess debates, and the hon. Gentleman may seek to raise the matter then. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate in the near future and cannot undertake necessarily to be able to do so in the autumn.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend, as the person who was the first to foresee the scandal of pensions mis-selling in the early 1980s, support a call for a debate on a scandal of similar proportions—the scandal of mortgage mis-selling? The relevant Select Committee has called for regulation. There is a need to establish an independent advisory service for the public, perhaps fee-based but certainly separate from the need to earn commission. Is she aware that this morning's edition of Financial Adviser drew attention to the sacking of a man who wrote a publication known as "The Mortgage Bible", which gave invaluable advice to the public? Is there not a case for exposing the fact that the Council of Mortgage Lenders is very much a self-serving and self-interested organisation and is not serving its customers—those who borrow—who are being mis-sold mortgages on a huge scale?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I well recall—as he does—the warnings that were given to the previous Government and the degree to which we, and many outside the House, urged on them that there should be some precautionary supervision of the selling of pensions. I also recall that that advice was dismissed as being unnecessary. I acknowledge that similar concern is emerging regarding the handling of mortgages, although I was not aware of the detail that my hon. Friend gave in his question. I will
1198
certainly draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with these matters, who I know will take his suggestion very seriously.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Lady tell us who will deliver the business statement next week? May I express the sentiment widely felt on the Conservative Benches that neither she nor her deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, should be victims of the Prime Minister's bid or bin directive?
Mrs. Beckett: I think that the second half of that question was meant to be friendly; if so, I appreciate it. None of us gets too excited about such stories—the silly season seems to have started early. The Prime Minister has gone to some pains to make it plain that all these stories about his close and dear and near allies are certainly not based on any conversations or any knowledge of his.
Mr. Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, about three years ago, there was an outbreak of legionnaire's disease in my constituency. As a result, 21 people's health was badly affected and, tragically, one man died. Is she aware that, last week, the outbreak control team, which was responsible for dealing with that outbreak, published its report on the incident, which contains several important lessons for dealing with such outbreaks not only in Corby but throughout the country?
Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the subject? This is not just a Corby issue; legionnaire's disease and its potential threat to people is a national problem. In my view, we do not yet have sufficient knowledge on how to prevent or control the disease. That issue deserves the full attention of the House.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that he has taken a close interest in the matter. The House will share the sympathy and concern that he expressed, particularly for the family of the person who died. I entirely share his view that those are serious matters, and the Government will study the inquiry's findings carefully. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future, although my hon. Friend may seek to raise the matter in one of our Adjournment debates or in the pre-recess debates. I can certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who I know will share his concern that we learn, for others, the lessons of the tragedy that was experienced in his constituency.
Mr. Bercow: May I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? I very much hope that the right hon. Lady will deliver the business statement not only next week, but for a long time to come. She has undoubtedly discharged her obligations with great charm, style and dexterity. If I have not damned her with that, it is difficult to imagine what would do the job.
On a serious and non-partisan note, may I request an early debate in Government time on the state of the national health service. Is the right hon. Lady aware that two of my constituents, Caroline Cripps from Westcott and Marc Smith from Buckingham, have the misfortune to suffer from the relapsing-remitting form of multiple sclerosis, and that both are anxious to be reassured

1199
urgently that they will be provided long into the future with the drug beta interferon? Does the Leader of the House accept that an early debate would afford hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to express their concern that that drug should in future, in accordance with what we hope is sound guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, be ordinarily prescribed, where it is judged to be clinically appropriate?
Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I know that he will understand when I say that I am not sure whether they will do me good or harm, but I appreciate them, as does the Parliamentary Secretary, on whose behalf I forgot to thank the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) raises an important issue, which as he says is non-partisan. He mentioned that NICE is considering the matter. I strongly share the view, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that that is the right way to approach the issue. We have probably all had constituency cases that raised the matter and in which there is sometimes a dispute about whether that drug is clinically appropriate. I share entirely the hon. Gentleman's view that it is important for us to have sound advice in order to make good judgments on the matter, so that people can receive the care to which they are entitled under the NHS. I know that that view is shared by my right hon. Friend.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the issue in the near future, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I welcome the news that the Chairman of Ways and Means may name the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill for further consideration next week. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the special report that the Bill's Standing Committee presented to the House, which concluded that while the Bill should proceed, neither it nor the additional assurances provided for the petitioners entirely remedied the problems of governance of the City? Does my right hon. Friend agree that prior to such a debate on the Bill, sensible consideration of the conclusions of the special report by the City of London Corporation would be helpful?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend was one of those who served on the Committee, which did a good deal of careful and thoughtful work. It is a private Bill, and my hon. Friend will understand that it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means when such a Bill comes before the House. I know that the Committee's special report identifies a number of areas of further concern, but I believe that I am right in saying that at least some of them are outside the scope of the current Bill anyway, although it is generally accepted that they provide a useful framework for further discussion about the work of the City. There will be an opportunity to air those matters when the Bill is debated.
Dr. Lewis: May I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)
1200
and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)? There are many on the Opposition Benches who appreciate the professional, competent and courteous way in which the right hon. Lady discharges her present duties. We are well aware of the way in which some members of the Labour party go about internal party business, and we sincerely hope that she does not suffer the fate of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who was subjected to a similar campaign.
On a lighter note, may we have a debate next week on the application of the Government's third way to the public services? Such a debate could obviously be opened by the Prime Minister and wound up by the Deputy Prime Minister—that is, if the Deputy Prime Minister has not wound up the Prime Minister too much already and if the Prime Minister is not too busy running scarred.
Mrs. Beckett: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was a Member of the House who made almost a profession of making the most dreadful puns. I hope that that did not act as a precedent. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I am becoming slightly suspicious that they are a special means of trying to persuade me to give time for debates.
The hon. Gentleman proposes a debate on the third way in the public services. I am of course aware of the many press reports about what are supposed to be differences between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, but all I can say to him is that I should like to use the precise words said by the Prime Minister's official spokesman about the quality of those stories. Although those words would be in keeping with the atmosphere in which we endeavour to conduct our exchanges, were I to use them I fear that I would be not only out of order, but thrown out of the Chamber for using unparliamentary language.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: A statutory instrument on ministerial pay is due to be considered in Committee next week. In view of the evident fact that so many of the right hon. Lady's colleagues are not up to their job, would not it be more appropriate for the amount that they are paid to be considered by the whole House?
On behalf of a constituent with a serious immigration problem, I have written three times in three months to the Home Office. In response to all those letters, I received two replies, both of which had the same reference number and the same date. Both were signed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). One said:
"There is no trace of the receipt of an application from Mrs K".
The other said, on the same day:
"Mrs K's application has been passed to a caseworker … who will make every effort to consider it as quickly as possible."
In view of the evident incompetence of some of the right hon. Lady's colleagues, may we please have a debate on the matter without delay?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that members of the Government are incompetent. One reason for our election was the visible incompetence of many of those who served in the previous Government.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is here, and he is prepared to assist the hon. Gentleman if he can, but it may not have occurred to him that it is often the practice

1201
in Ministers' offices to date letters as they are sent out. I may be mistaken about that, but it is entirely possible that those letters were signed on different days and that the same date was put on them when they were put in envelopes.
Mr. Christopher Chope: May I ask the right hon. Lady what has happened to the electronic commerce Bill? Will she arrange time for a debate about the folly of regional development agency boundaries? They are being used increasingly by all Departments, but are resulting in extraordinary anomalies. For example, the new learning and skills councils will be set up on a sub-regional basis, which will mean that travel-to-work and travel-to-study areas in my constituency will be divided by an artificial regional boundary between the south-east and the south-west which bears no relationship to life on the ground.
Mrs. Beckett: On the e-commerce Bill, as the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, discussions have been continuing on the matter and I anticipate that something will come forward in due course.
On boundaries, I think that I am right in saying that those matters have not been finally settled. However, I suspect that the Government would share some of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed if it were not possible to achieve as much alignment as possible between boundaries. If he has not already done so, I suggest that he should take that up as a matter of urgency with the relevant Secretary of State.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords] Programme)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords]—

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords] Programme)
  Timetable
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in the order specified in the Table and completed at today's sitting; and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

  Table
  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  New Clauses relating to Part I; amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 13, Schedule 1 and Clauses 14 and 15.

  2½ hours after commencement of proceedings on this Order.

  Any New Clauses relating to the making of orders under Clause 44(5) which may be selected: amendments relating to Clauses 44 to 48, Schedule 2 and Clauses 49 to 52.

  4 hours after commencement of proceedings on this Order.

  Remaining New Clauses; amendments relating to Clauses 16 to 43.

  5½ hours after commencement of proceedings on this Order.

  Amendments to Clauses 53 to 59, Schedule 3 and Clauses 60 to 63; New Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 64 to 67, Schedules 4 to 7 and Clause 68: Third Reading.

  6 hours after commencement of proceedings on this Order.

  Questions to be put
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Amendments or Motions.

  Miscellaneous
  3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting: and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.
  4. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.
  5. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
  7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  8. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16th December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
  9. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day
  Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Committee, considered.
  Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      REFERRAL OF YOUNG OFFENDERS TO YOUTH OFFENDER PANELS
      '.—(1) This section applies where a youth court or other magistrates' court is dealing with a person under the age of 18 for an offence for which a custodial sentence is available and—

      (a) neither the offence nor any associated offence is one for which the sentence is fixed by law;

      (b) the court is not, in respect of the offence or any associated offence, proposing to impose a custodial sentence on the offender or make a hospital order in his case;

      (c) the court is not proposing to impose a fine; and

      (d) the court is not proposing to impose a conditional discharge.

      (2) If the referral conditions are satisfied in accordance with subsection (3) and referral is available to the court, the court shall order the offender to be referred to a youth offender panel.
      (3) The referral conditions are satisfied if the offender pleaded guilty to the offence or any associated offence and has never been convicted by or before a court in the United Kingdom of any offence other than the offence and any associated offence.
      (4) For the purposes of this section referral is available to a court if—

      (a) the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements for the implementation of referral orders are available in the area in which it appears to the court that the offender resides or will reside; and

      (b) the notice has not been withdrawn.

      (5) In this Part "referral order" means an order under subsection (2).
      (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of this section as he considers appropriate for altering in any way the descriptions of offenders in the case of which the referral conditions fall to be satisfied for the purposes of subsection (3).
      (7) Any description of offender having effect for those purposes by virtue of such regulations may be framed by reference to such matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including (in particular) one or more of the following—

      (a) the offender's age;

      (b) how the offender has pleaded;

      (c) the offence (or offences) of which the offender has been convicted;

      (d) the offender's previous convictions (if any);

      (e) how (if at all) the offender has been previously punished or otherwise dealt with by any court;

      (f) any characteristics or behaviour of, or circumstances relating to, any person who has at any time been charged in the same proceedings as the offender (whether or not in respect of the same offence); and

      (g) whether the offender has previously been subject to a referral order.

      (8) For the purposes of this section an offender who has been convicted of an offence in respect of which he was conditionally discharged (whether by a court in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland) shall be treated, despite—

      1205

      (a) section 1C(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (conviction of offence for which offender so discharged deemed not a conviction), or

      (b) Article 6(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland),

      as having been convicted of that offence'.—[Mr. Greenway.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      2.10 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out Clauses 1 and 2.
      No. 12, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
      '(d) the court is not proposing to impose a conditional discharge.'.
      Mr. Greenway: Part I introduces a new sentence for young offenders of referral to a youth offender panel. Panels will be established by the youth offender teams which owe their existence to the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The purpose of the panel is to draw up a programme of reparation, rehabilitation and, where appropriate, reintegration, aimed at addressing the young person's offending behaviour with a view to preventing him or her from reoffending in future.
      I am glad to see the Home Secretary here. We support the concept of the referral order and believe that, properly resourced and constituted, youth offender panels have the potential to provide a more structured and coherent programme of support and reparation for a young offender than has been the usual experience with the generality of community sentences.
      In Committee we highlighted some important elements where we have some disagreement with the Government about the way in which the new sentencing option is being introduced. New clause 1 offers a better framework and structure for the introduction of this important initiative, the genesis for which lies in much of the work of the last Government and taken forward by this Government, than the Government scheme. In addition and so that we can get the maximum out of this afternoon's debate, new clause 1 addresses all the important elements that were debated in Committee on which there was some disagreement.
      The first concern that we addressed was whether this new option should be available only in youth and magistrates courts. We probed the Government to find out why the referral order was not apparently available to the Crown courts. The Government's view is that the number of occasions when a young offender might be dealt with by a Crown court in the circumstances which would allow or might require a referral order are sufficiently few to leave it to the magistrates or youth court to make the referral. A Crown court can send a young offender back to a youth court for that purpose, as required. Although we still believe that this is an unnecessary complication, it is not a key issue for us, so new clause 1 incorporates in the first line the same wording as in the Government scheme, restricting the power to youth and magistrates courts. We are happy to accept and reflect the Government's view on that.
      1206
      Our most fundamental disagreement remains with the Government's insistence that the referral order should be mandatory, certainly in the first instance, for a first time offender who pleads guilty. We shall come on to the plea of guilty aspect later. We think that it is a mistake for the referral order to be mandatory.
      The House will be aware that in another place the mandatory nature of the referral order was changed to provide the court with discretion. In Committee that change was reversed to reinstate the mandatory nature of the referral order. We find it slightly surprising that in the other place Liberal Democrat Members supported the amendment of my noble Friend Lord Windlesham whereas in Committee the Liberal Democrat Member voted against his noble Friends and in support of the Government. We note with some enthusiasm that as in Committee when the Liberal Democrats tabled one amendment, so on Report they have tabled one amendment. As will be clear from new clause 1 we agree that the availability of a conditional discharge to the court in the circumstances would be welcome.
      We remain of the view that to make the referral mandatory for first time young offenders is a mistake because these are not the group of offenders for whom mandatory sentences should be thought appropriate. Notwithstanding the fact that these are pilot arrangements, so are capable of adaptation and adjustment in the light of experience, we envisage that a court will frequently have to make a referral order against its better judgment. In all sincerity I suggest to the Home Secretary that that has the prospect of undermining confidence in the scheme. To allow the court virtually no discretion for first-time offenders is bad law and will lead to rough justice and inconsistency.
      Even if one accepts the principle of a mandatory referral order, it is questionable whether the conditions which trigger an automatic referral are the right ones or whether they require further thought and adjustment. The key purpose of new clause 1 is to suggest to the Government why we believe that those conditions need some changes in a number of respects. The changes that we think would be appropriate are set out in the new clause.
      2.15 pm
      First and in many respects most importantly, we need to question the range of offences which a young offender may have committed which would justify a mandatory requirement for the young person to work with a youth offender panel to address his offending behaviour and make reparation. As drafted, the Bill regards any offence as deserving such treatment. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has had time to study the Hansard reports of the Committee which was good natured. Although we had some disagreements it was not one of those Committees where we fought to the wire on many issues. When I pointed out that some offences were less serious and sufficiently minor not to justify a referral, I was asked to suggest one. I outlined the case of a 17-year-old motorist, perhaps about to go to university, of previous good character who drove through a red traffic light or was caught speeding. In a number of circumstances such a young motorist, like any other motorist stopped by the police and told of his transgression, might be given a fixed penalty ticket.

      1207
      The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), has recently expressed concern about a particularly prevalent minor offence that youngsters are wont to commit, which is cycling on the pavement. I must confess that that offence did not cross my mind. Yesterday, the Minister tabled a statutory instrument, which provides for an on-the-spot fine or fixed penalty notice for the offence of cycling on the footway contrary to section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.
      The Minister and the House will know from early-day motion 766 that not all his hon. Friends—indeed, not all of mine either—consider cycling on the pavement to be a punishable offence, let alone punishable with on-the-spot fines. There are as many as 27 signatures to that early-day motion. If we pray against that statutory instrument and there is a vote on it, it will be interesting to see how many of the Minister's hon. Friends vote against it and in support of that early-day motion.
      This is good-natured banter, but cycling on the pavement is illegal, and can be dangerous. In response to my suggestion that someone going through a red traffic light should be considered a danger to the rest of society, the Minister said that he could introduce me to the parents of children who had been maimed as a result of such behaviour. I fully accept that, but the House should also reflect on the fact that there is an equal prospect of some young tearaway who cycles on the pavement posing a similar danger. Although some people approve of cycling on the pavement as it is safer for the cyclist, given the state of the traffic on the roads, it can be dangerous for the people on the pavement. I have no qualms about the Minister's intention to give the police an additional power to take action if they think it is required.
      Whether the offence is going through a red traffic light, speeding or cycling on the pavement, as the Bill is construed a young offender will pay a fine if the police choose to give him a fixed penalty notice, whereas another offender who commits an identical offence will be summoned to appear in court, whereupon, having pleaded guilty, the magistrate will, under the Bill, have no option but to refer him to a youth offender panel.
      To use the expression that an enraged mother in a queue at a passport office used when talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) last week, that is completely barmy. How could anyone explain the logic of the system to a young person whose mate gets an on-the-spot fine, whereas for exactly the same offence he is referred for three months to a youth offender panel?
      In fairness, under the Bill the court has an alternative: it could grant an absolute discharge. Some magistrates may be persuaded that that is a preferable option. Either way, it will lead to inconsistency in the sentencing of young people. Inconsistency in the administration of justice to young people is, in my experience, the harbinger of grievance, and the harbinger of grievance is the parent of alienation. That is the opposite of what the Government are sensibly trying to do in the Bill, which is to bring young people up short when they have offended. The sentence that they are given for their offence must be appropriate in the circumstances and relevant to their situation.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with some interest, because this is not
      1208
      a matter in which I have participated closely in the past. Does he agree that, if persons who have committed the same offence are given different punishments, that could give rise to a potentially objectionable situation under the European convention on human rights?
      Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We debated this issue at some length in Committee. I can only pass on to him the Government's reassurance, which, in all fairness, we are happy to accept, that the Bill complies with all elements of the European convention on human rights. He is right: people have in the past sought redress in the European Court if our law has created an injustice which our courts are unable to address. They will be able to go to our courts when the human rights legislation that the House has passed is fully implemented.
      I do not want to labour the point, except to say that it is extraordinary for the Government to expect the House to understand and agree with a sentence for a misdemeanour—not a high crime or serious offence—which will depend on how the young offender is prosecuted. In most cases, the police will not have the slightest idea of the young person's background and whether he is a known troublemaker or has never been in any trouble before.
      It is ludicrous to propose that if a young person gets a fixed penalty notice, he must pay an on-the-spot fine, but if, for the same offence, he is required to appear in court, he must be referred to a youth offender panel to address his offending behaviour.
      In new clause 1, we provide two entirely sensible solutions. The first is to establish which offences should trigger an automatic referral to a youth offender panel, and which offences could be regarded as less serious. As I said to the Home Secretary, we agree with this disposal. He will remember that, in the debate on Second Reading, I told him that I had visited Boston, Massachusetts with the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Committee looked into the imaginative way in which they deal with young offenders in Boston, and it was then that I first understood the power and good sense of subjecting young delinquents to a structured programme of reparation and rehabilitation. We are fully on side in that objective. However, if we have to accept, given the Government's majority, that the referral will change back from a discretionary to a mandatory requirement, we have a right and a responsibility to ask the Home Secretary to think again about what offences will justify a mandatory referral.
      2.30 pm
      We think that the Government's policy is really about dealing with offences that are dishonest, violent or involve other criminal conduct. That is why, in line two of new clause 1, we introduce the phrase
      "an offence for which a custodial sentence is available".
      The aim is not just to highlight the need for offences to be serious, but to indicate clearly that the breadth of criminal activity, of vandalism and of violence, which we know that the Government are seeking to address, would carry the option of a custodial sentence. There would be an automatic referral to a youth offender panel where a young offender pleaded guilty on his first appearance in court.

      1209
      In Committee, we debated the issue of seriousness in some detail. The theft of a pint of a milk was an offence that the Committee thought serious enough to warrant a referral order. Such an offence would be covered. That does not have to mean that someone who admits in his first appearance in court to theft of anything will automatically get a prison sentence, but the offence to which that person has pleaded guilty, including theft of a pint of milk, would carry a prison sentence as an option, so it would be covered, as would malicious damage, vandalism and any assault.
      The petty crime that concerns local communities and characterises the behaviour of youngsters who are out of control and need their offending behaviour addressed would therefore be covered by the alternative proposal. However, serious motoring offences would also be covered. A 17-year-old driving under the influence of drugs or drink, or causing death by dangerous driving, would come within the category where a custodial sentence is an option.
      No one—I agree with the spirit of what the Minister of State was saying in Committee—could possibly argue that a young person who had pleaded guilty to such a serious offence would not be in need of a programme of rehabilitation, reparation and remedial action to address his offending behaviour, but our proposal would also leave courts free to continue to dispose of less serious summary offences, which I have already described as misdemeanours, with a fine, or courts could impose a conditional discharge.
      Nevertheless, it is not our intention that the restriction of offences for which a referral order is encouraged for the more serious crimes and the imposition of a fine or conditional discharge should be regarded as exclusive alternatives. Both have their place in a sensible sentencing strategy. Even if the offence involved criminality, there would be occasions where the option of a fine or conditional discharge would be an important discretion for the court to have at its disposal.
      What if, for example, a 16 or 17-year-old, perhaps out with his girlfriend and not looking for trouble, is attacked by other youngsters and, in defending himself, assaults his assailants or causes damage? He may have had no intention to do so, but the action is likely to be considered reckless by the court. It happens. I am glad to note that the Home Secretary agrees.
      It would be ludicrous to say in such circumstances that there is no option but to refer that person to a youth offender panel and to argue that that would be the most appropriate outcome. Clearly, it would not. The court must have the discretion to impose an alternative. A fine, or, indeed, in those circumstances, a conditional discharge, which is far more powerful than the absolute discharge, which is the only thing available under the Government's proposals, would be more appropriate.
      More important, to have such a restricted sentencing option would lead to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. The failure of the Government's proposals to provide for such a sensible outcome will affect the way in which youth and magistrates courts deal with young people. That will lead to the sort of controversy and anger that we saw in response to some of the proposals in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In Committee, we commented on that point.
      1210
      On previous occasions, the Home Secretary has described me as an old lag because of all the long service I have done in various criminal justice Bill Standing Committees. In the Committee that considered the 1991 Act, several of us had some misgivings about unit fines, but I say in all sincerity that he is going down the same road with the current proposal. He is producing an inflexible structure that will lead to anger and controversy. Our worry is that what is a sensible initiative will be brought into disrepute even during the early years of the pilot schemes because of that inflexibility. The Government must think again.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: I ask the hon. Gentleman, in all sincerity, to consider whether he has missed the crucial point about the provision: it is about restorative justice, introducing meaning to the process involving young people and tackling issues at the crucial moment of that first appearance in court.
      Mr. Greenway: If I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps he will have an argument with the Minister of State. We heard all that claptrap in Committee. We are not missing the point at all. We are fully seized of the point. We are saying that the referral order must be appropriate to the young person in question.
      The Government are introducing a scheme where some referral orders will be wholly inappropriate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was not listening, but what could be more inappropriate than to say to one young offender, "You have been cycling on the footway. Here is a fine," and to say to another, "By the way, because we did not catch you, but we know who you are, you have been summoned to the court, you will go to court and plead guilty"? The Home Secretary must accept that, under the Bill, the court would have no option but to refer that person to a youth offender panel.
      I cannot for the life of me see the logic of such a situation. Where is the reparation? Where is the reintegration into society in those circumstances? It is complete nonsense to have such a conflict between two alternative disposals for precisely the same offence, depending entirely on how the young person is prosecuted. We have made our point. I can tell from the noises behind me and the nods that I see when I look around from time to time that, thankfully, some hon. Members in the Chamber agree with me.
      Two other aspects of new clause 1 differ from the Government's structure. If we accept the logic of the mandatory referral for a plea of guilty, it will be hard to see the logic of giving the court any discretion if a young person pleads guilty to one offence, but not guilty to another. The Home Secretary will remember that, on Second Reading, we expressed the concern that, perversely, youngsters might be tempted to plead not guilty to avoid the youth offender panel. Bearing in mind that our proposal would restrict the referral order to more serious offences and provide the option for a fine, we think it would probably be more straightforward if the referral order were mandatory for all pleas of guilty.
      The Government's case is that a guilty plea is essential to the young offender being prepared to accept that he has done wrong. If he has pleaded guilty to one offence, even if he has pleaded not guilty to another, that is an admission of guilt for the youth offender panel to work on.

      1211
      The new clause incorporates all the powers that the Home Secretary thinks appropriate to extend the provisions of the referral order to other offenders. On Second Reading and in Committee, we certainly supported the concept of making referral orders appropriate and available for dealing with more persistent offenders. However, we should have preferred that persistent young offenders were brought within the scheme's provisions immediately.
      If and when other than first-time offenders are brought within the scheme's provisions, we think that courts must have regard to whether such youngsters have previously been subject to a referral order. As we debated and agreed in Committee, the Government's wording technically provides for that. Nevertheless, we still feel that a requirement to have regard to whether a young offender has previously been subject to a young offender order is sufficiently important to be included in the Bill.
      Although we support the idea of referral orders to youth offender panels, we disagree with the conditions in which courts will be able to pass such a sentence. The provisions are riddled with illogicality. The argument that the provisions are a completely new and radical approach to dealing with first-time young offenders does not justify the blanket provision, in every case, of referral orders. Therefore, I ask the House to support new clause 1.
      Mr. Dawson: It is with regret that I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), as I fully realise that, throughout our consideration of the Bill, he has pursued his case with sincerity, great knowledge and experience. Nevertheless, I think that he has totally missed the point on the radical nature of the proposals—which are not at all intended to reflect a youth justice system that has become discredited among not only young people but those who have felt its inadequacies, whether as victims or those who work within that system. The Bill offers an approach that is absolutely trying to deal with young people at the crucial moment—when they first appear in court.
      Far from being inflexible, the approach offers the supreme flexibility of providing young people with an opportunity, over a significant period of between three and 12 months, to sit with a panel that would include their parents, representatives from various agencies, people from the community and possibly victims of their offences; to use that opportunity to be confronted with the reality of their offending; and to have the underlying and overt reasons for their offending uncovered, analysed and challenged. They would also have the opportunity to make reparation to an individual victim or, perhaps more likely, to the wider community.
      The Bill offers a wholly different approach from the current one, in which, very perfunctorily, young people appear in court under the influence of various messages about what the experience is supposed to be about. They endure an occasion in court that is probably meaningless for them: get the whole thing done, dusted and out of the way as quickly as possible; and then go on.
      2.45 pm
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Ryedale raised the issue of young people who are apprehended for going
      1212
      through a red traffic light. I told him then, and I tell him now, that I could today put together a programme for a young person who had been convicted of such an offence—which is a very serious one indeed—involving the auspices of other groups in the community, that would shake that young person to the core about what happens when one speeds in a motorcar. Does anyone think that that is less worthwhile than a young person appearing in court and receiving a fine that may be paid by his or her parents?
      Lorna Fitzsimons: Is my hon. Friend aware of a cutting-edge young offenders programme that is being operated at Buckley Hall prison by the prisoners themselves? The programme—which is receiving accreditation—is being operated just as my hon. Friend has described, by talking about people who have thrown away their lives by using cars to do things that they have come to regret. Additionally, the programme is thought to be so worthwhile that the people behind it are giving presentations to magistrates across the north-west region.
      Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I am not aware of that project, it is a perfect example of what I am talking about—a programme devised by those who have been through experiences that have meaning for offenders and to which offenders are able to respond.
      I regret to say that the out-of-date approach to youth justice being advocated by the Opposition threatens to undermine the Bill's entire purpose. If we were to allow crucial get-outs, such as opportunities for young people to be dealt with in a conditional discharge and a fine, we should miss the crucially important moment—the first appearance in court—and that crucial chance to influence behaviour at that level.
      As one who worked in the youth justice system for some years, I tell the hon. Member for Ryedale that one of the system's greatest failings was that, in far too many cases, by the time we got to the young people for whom we were trying to develop programmes as alternatives to custodial sentences—they had all the cautions, court appearances, fines, conditional discharges, and attendance and supervision orders behind them—they were lost to us. The moment had gone.
      The Bill creates the opportunity to use the crucial moment. It brings a radical approach to justice that is meaningful to the young person and to the community, restores to the community what it has lost to offending, and gives young people an opportunity to move on and face what they have done. The approach is novel, and it builds on good experience from around the world. It is what we need in the new youth justice system, and I hope that all hon. Members will wholeheartedly support it.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Liberal Democrat Members strongly support the creation of youth offender panels, which are based on experience from not only around the world, but across the border. Some elements of Scotland's children's panels and children's hearings, which have worked well in Scotland, have been incorporated in the proposed process. We hope that the panels will provide the basis of a new approach to youth offending, and offer a more constructive response to young offenders that is based on examining the causes and consequences of their behaviour.

      1213
      We also hope that the proposals will inspire a bit more confidence in victims that the young people concerned are being confronted with the consequences of their actions. We often forget how, often, victims feel that current court procedures offer absolutely nothing to them, leaving them feeling as if they would just like to get hold of the person who perpetrated the crime and give them a good talking to about what it means to be a victim and the adverse effects of their crime.
      Our amendment No. 12, which is in this group, is a modest amendment that would introduce a little more flexibility to the system created by the Bill. The court will not currently have to refer first-time offenders who plead guilty to a youth offender panel if it is proposing to impose a custodial sentence or an unconditional discharge—decisions that fall at opposite ends of the scale. If neither course of action is proposed, referral to a youth offender panel will be required. The amendment would give the court the further option of a conditional discharge.
      We support the Government's view that when the conditions are met, referral to a youth offender panel should be mandatory. For the new system of youth justice to be proved effective, it needs to be widely used. In the Scottish system, if guilt is accepted the children's hearing is automatic. We agree that that principle should apply. Over time we want it to be broadened beyond first-time offenders. As we gain more experience, we would like the provision to be available for a wider range of offenders.
      However, we believe that giving magistrates complete discretion—which we normally favour—runs the risk of limiting the effect of that useful development in youth justice at a time when it needs to be given a fair, broad trial over a lot of cases. There is a strong case for allowing the court an extra option before the referral becomes automatic. Unless the Government accept the amendment, they will effectively abolish the conditional discharge for first-time offenders who plead guilty. They may be the most likely to respond to a conditional discharge. In some cases it would be the most effective response to the crime and it would not be sensible to drain the limited resources of the youth offender panels, so there is merit in a modicum of additional discretion.
      At the moment, absolute discharge is rarely used compared with conditional discharge. Courts can impose a condition of non-offending behaviour for a year or more, so we think that it would be a useful way of avoiding clogging the new youth offender panels with minor offenders.
      The Government's objection to similar amendments in this House and the other place seems to have been that they do not like conditional discharges because they send the wrong message. Are they saying that they no longer see any use in conditional discharges for first-time young offenders who plead guilty? Are they saying that they are no use for young offenders? Are they sure that the new youth offender panels will have the resources to deal with all who may currently receive a conditional discharge?
      Our proposal has gained considerable support since it was first put forward in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Dholakia. It was proposed in the Standing Committee with the support of the three Opposition parties represented there.
      The Conservative new clause on the new power of referral to a youth offender panel has been explained to us exhaustively. The aim of the new clause is to rewrite
      1214
      the relevant clauses in the Bill. It would meet our request by allowing conditional discharge as an option. It would also go further by allowing a fine. We understand that argument, but we do not think that the Government will be persuaded of it. Our concern about the new clause is that it would limit the use of referral to only those first-time offenders who plead guilty to an offence for which a custodial sentence is available. We are not convinced that referrals should be limited in that way. The new system of youth offender panels could respond effectively to offences for which there is no custodial sentence available. We prefer the Government's wording. The panel's contracts will be a new form of community sentence. Although the new clause has other merits, it imposes too great a restriction and we do not support it.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to play a small part at this stage. The new clause gives us another opportunity to think about a sensible part of the Bill that has a flaw.
      Referral orders are an idea whose time has come. I congratulate the Government—I did not take part on Second Reading—on picking up those ideas and running with them. I went to see Charles Pollard and his practical efforts in Aylesbury before the election, and very impressive they were. I sat at the back of the room and watched a meeting at which parents, young offenders and victims were present and the whole issue was talked through. It was superbly managed by a young woman police officer. Clause 1 or the new clause would implement that. The fundamental difference between clause 1 and the new clause is that the new clause would give more flexibility. There is a case for more flexibility.
      This is the point at which one becomes a little frustrated about coming in late to take part in the parliamentary minuet. The Home Secretary should have accepted the Lords amendment to introduce the word "may" instead of "shall". I apologise to him for not having heard his reasons for throwing it out.
      I sit as a recorder. I listen to the gossip at lunch and go to the many training sessions that the Lord Chancellor rightly requires recorders to attend. We rightly required them to attend such sessions when we were in government. Complaints consistently come from experienced judges—Lord Justices, recorders and assistant recorders with huge experience and Crown court judges with the widest experience of all—about Parliament setting a provision in stone or steel and requiring them to operate it. They are willing and anxious to operate it, but they have to see the individual circumstances. They may say, "Look, this is basically a very good idea, but in this particular example it is damned silly and it will waste the referral committee's time."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was right to draw attention to a mistake that we made in government. This Government have been in power for such a short time that they have not made any mistakes, but that may change. I know that irony is the most dangerous political weapon, because when people read comments they tend to take them at face value. It could come out over the airwaves that the former Attorney-General has said that the Government have made no mistakes and it would be quoted back to me. We made a mistake with unit fines. There was some merit in the idea, but it was barmy. I was Solicitor-General when the policy was slipping through. It shows how little we

      1215
      know of what goes on in other Departments. I confess—in Latin if necessary—that the unit fines system slipped through and it was intolerable.
      I have far too much respect for the Home Secretary to want to see him make a similar mistake. It would not be as bad, because the worst consequence would probably be to waste the time of referral committees. That is a pity, because they need to be labour-intensive. That is why I commend them so strongly. We have to spend a great deal of time on youth justice, particularly with people in the early stages of offending. Time, effort and expertise are well used at that stage in a person's career of potential wrongdoing.
      3 pm
      A resource, such as those committees, should not have its time wasted, and the elaborations of the court should not be made necessary by inflexibility in the structure of the Act, as it will be. That is why I support the new clause. I do so honestly, although I do not think that the new clause is the perfect answer as it also uses the word "shall". However, it gives more options before we reach compulsory referral.
      There is little opportunity left for the Home Secretary, as we are getting to Third Reading today. However, I beg him to try to find a way to allow the court honest flexibility. He may say that there is a certain flexibility because courts can always impose a fine.
      Mr. Greenway: That is the whole point—the courts cannot impose a fine. However, there will be an opportunity for the Home Secretary to think again. If he gets his way, and neither the new clause nor the Liberal Democrat amendment is accepted, the Bill will go back to the other place with the measure reversed. The Home Secretary's noble colleagues will then have to explain why.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. We need to get back to the sensible position suggested by their Lordships in a thoroughly constructive amendment to this otherwise thoroughly sensible proposal by the Government. Our suggestion—that a fine or conditional discharge would provide more flexibility—is a second-best, but a useful second-best. I ask the House to think seriously about supporting the new clause.
      The Home Secretary must not think it necessary to force these referral committees to take every case. They will be extremely enthusiastic to take up the right kind of case, and they will need no forcing. I have long experience of working with magistrates at every level, publicly and privately, and my impression is that they cry out for new measures, which they welcome with open arms when they are flexible. They will welcome the proposal with open arms, but it would be much more useful to them if the flexibility that was wisely proposed by the Lords—it is not a slap in the face for the Government, but a sensible suggestion—could be restored.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I have every
      1216
      sympathy for the Bill, and this part in particular, but I agree with the thrust of the new clause. The basic problem that we have faced—it was raised time and again in Committee—is the inflexibility of this clause. I hope that Labour Members will not say that I have misunderstood it. I have 25 years' experience as an advocate, and I have a limited ability to understand legislation.
      The new approach is, of course, welcome, and it gives an opportunity to avoid criminalising a young person who may, early on, be put back on the rails. It is a good investment of time and resources. For every reason, it is a good idea. However, I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire on the question of flexibility, which is the key issue.
      Before I address that matter, there are one or two points about new clause 1 that I cannot quite accept, such as the precondition that a custodial sentence must be available. Many serious offences do not carry a custodial sentence, and that is a slight concern.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has worked extremely hard on this Bill, but I disagree with one of his points in relation to people electing trial to the Crown court. With some judges that I know—present company excepted—one would be better advised not to do that. One could end up with a right old tanning in some of the places where I used to practise.
      I agree that bringing in the conditional discharge—referred to by both the hon. Member for Ryedale and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—is a proper and sensible approach. The inflexibility of the mandatory approach is most unfortunate.
      I plead guilty to having introduced the subject of the milk bottle into the Committee's deliberations. I was probably subliminally concerned about the dairy industry. However, I ask the House to consider this example. At a temporary traffic light system where one can see from one end to the other, a young person sees that nothing is coming and drives through. He should not have done it—we all know that. That offence is not endorsable. However, under the Bill, that young person might well have to spend 12 months in a multidisciplinary panel approach because of that one transgression, which is not even endorsable. I am sure that there are many other examples. I am not trying to clever—I am making a point about the inflexibility of the Government's mandatory approach.
      There are huge resource implications. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) may disagree. No doubt he will say that I have misunderstood the matter. I agree with the thrust of the Bill, and I am not arguing about the theory behind it or the practice of it. However, I am saying that it will not be appropriate for all offences.
      Mr. Dawson: I believe sincerely that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. This not a 12-month sentence to anything. This is an opportunity for a panel to be almost infinitely flexible and to address that young person's behaviour in a variety of ways.
      Mr. Llwyd: What variety of ways are needed over a period of between three and 12 months to address the offending behaviour to which I referred? What possible

      1217
      expert or authority could be involved? What can be done with that type of person? These are just words. With respect, that is a complete nonsense.
      Ms Beverley Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the example he has given, that young person has demonstrated a serious miscalculation of risk to himself or herself and to others, and that while nothing untoward may have occurred on that occasion, it is an important moment to get that young person to address that risk-taking to ensure that it does not escalate?
      Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Lady makes a good point, forcefully. I accept what she says in that instance, and the point has been made. She has a valid point, and I do not profess to have the monopoly of wisdom.
      My main concern is the mandatory form—the inflexibility. There are two main ways of making bad law. One is to rush it and to repent at leisure. The second is to introduce something that is inflexible. One of the worst-ever pieces of legislation passed by this House concerned the Child Support Agency, and we are still grappling with it. That was so inflexible, it did not work.
      The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the unit fines system. I was in daily practice at that time, and the number of injustices that poured out of magistrates courts, day in, day out, was an absolute disgrace. That was again because of inflexibility. The poll tax is another example. I note that the Home Secretary is laughing loudly. I am pleased that he is enjoying himself.
      I fully endorse the drift of the provision and agree with the new penalty, which will help young people in many cases; but there will be huge resource implications. Perhaps the Home Secretary does not realise how much it will cost. In some parts of north Wales and Merseyside it already takes up to six or seven weeks to get a probation report. The system will be clogged up with new referrals. I hope that the resources and expertise will be in place. I wish the system well but I foresee problems arising from its mandatory nature.
      Mr. Boswell: I gather that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State described my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) as an old lag in these matters. I plead guilty to being a first offender. It is not an area in which I spend much time. I have spent a great deal of time on other legislation, from the safest of all possible positions, as a lay legislator, not a legally qualified one.
      I am very much in sympathy with what my hon. Friend and others have said today, above all about the need for flexibility. I want to cite an example from completely outwith the Home Office. Recent protracted experience of the national minimum wage legislation encouraged us, in Committee, despite our opposition to the principle, to offer the Government the opportunity for flexibility in the drafting, giving them what one might loosely call a get-out clause: if something had been overlooked or got wrong, it would be possible to amend it to take account of the particular circumstances of a case.
      Almost immediately, such an opportunity arose in respect of au pairs. The legislation was unsatisfactory, as it would have brought to an end the ability of the majority of the people who employ au pairs to continue to do so.
      1218
      The Government had to strain legal language to the uttermost to get round inflexible legislation that was set in stone, redefining not the workers who were excluded but the work, in a way that I, as a lay person, find legally implausible.
      I suspect that it would have been easier to sustain the concept behind unit fines, which is not a bad one, had magistrates been able to vary their operation when they deemed that appropriate in the interests of justice or in the light of all the circumstances of a case.
      3.15 pm
      We have here a piece of machinery conceived for the best possible reasons, which I support in general—I have no argument with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on that—but if we say that we must tie it down in every single case because we cannot trust those who operate it to make a judgment, we start giving rise to trouble.
      If one is buying into the European convention, it is important that any punishment should be appropriate to the circumstances, not disproportionate. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) cited the example of someone driving through a red light wrongly but not endorsably. It is not at all clear that the procedure would be appropriate in that case. I am not saying that the Home Secretary would not win in court if there were a challenge, but he would have to go to court to prove the point, which is unfortunate.
      I am much more concerned with the lay sanctions in two respects. One of the Government's characteristics is a careful following of the tabloid press. If we say that referral to a youth offender panel must take place in all cases, a case is bound to arise in which it is darn silly to do it. The magistrates and the Home Secretary will be unable to do anything about it and it will appear in the press in a way that discredits the system. The press will ask how any sensible group of legislators could get themselves into such a situation.
      The second area of discredit, which I find equally disturbing, concerns the young offenders themselves. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy was absolutely right to ask what the panel would offer a young person in the circumstances that he described. We are talking not about a pattern of offending leading to a first appearance in court—I am at one with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre in that respect—but about a person who has behaved in a stupid and irresponsible way once.
      The very fact that the person has been apprehended, resulting eventually in a court appearance, is probably sufficient in itself. Going through the elaborate rigmarole of a youth offender panel may well not meet the case. It might in some cases; that is not the issue. The issue is whether there should be discretion to waive the process when appropriate.
      The provisions sit extremely ill with legislation that the Home Office introduced only yesterday in relation to spot fines. In that case, the police officer will have discretion: he may or may not decide to proceed. We are saying that police officers can have flexibility and discretion, but magistrates cannot.
      If the system is set up to allow a silly result, there has to be a safety valve at the end of the case. I predict what the safety valve will be: the case will be referred to the

      1219
      youth offender panel, with much cost and complication; the panel will meet and it will come up with what I will frankly call a Noddy solution—one that does not address the one—off offence, but is a fiction. That adds a further element of discredit, because it takes the emphasis away from the experience of cases in which the new system is applied sensibly and appropriately and puts it on cases in which the system should never have been considered.
      It is the sign of a mature Government not to say that they do not trust those who take decisions in the courts based on the legislation that they have passed. We should offer some flexibility. As a constituency Member who is concerned about young people, I have no problem with the concept of the system, but I am concerned that it may be discredited by being applied inappropriately and in a way that will attract opprobrium and hole it below the water line, when in fact we want it to succeed.
      Mr. James Clappison: I begin with an apology to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), as a constituency matter meant that I missed the beginning of his remarks. However, I caught the flavour of them at the end, and his sensible points about the need for flexibility have been adopted in subsequent contributions. I also wish to declare that I am a member of the Bar.
      Ministers must listen carefully to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) in favour of more flexibility. Labour Members have made some good contributions to the debate, but they are making slightly heavy weather of the issues.
      There is no need to go over the arguments about restorative justice and referral to youth panels, as there is wide agreement in the House on them. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said in support of the new clause did not contradict the general principle of restorative justice, and it cannot be said that the need for restorative justice disposes of the new clause as the administration of restorative justice requires flexibility.
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy practised for 25 years in youth courts and has much greater experience than either I or the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). However, the Government must consider very carefully the arguments of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about flexibility—which I shall turn to in a moment—and about the availability of referral to a youth offender panel in cases where a custodial sentence is not available.
      The Bill restricts referral to cases punishable with imprisonment. That is one of the conditions. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked about those offences that are not punishable with imprisonment but which magistrates think might be dealt with appropriately by referral to a young offender panel. That is an important question, but the Minister of State looks puzzled.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): It is a Conservative new clause.
      Mr. Clappison: That just shows how important flexibility is.
      1220
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale made another important point in favour of flexibility when he said that magistrates will decide such cases. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said in an intervention that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy did not get the point because the youth offender panel could administer justice in a wide variety of ways and that it had a lot of flexibility.
      I see that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre agrees that that was his point, but magistrates will know the youth offender panel's capabilities and they may think that a more appropriate way to deal with a case is by means of conditional discharge or a fine.
      Mr. Dawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the youth offender panel will be able to discuss such matters in depth and to examine a range of different ways to deal with offending behaviour and the underlying problems that become evident? The panel will be able to make decisions on the basis of knowledge that simply is not available to a youth court.
      Mr. Clappison: I appreciate that, but such decisions come after magistrates have heard the facts of a case and representations from both sides. One of the conditions for referral is that the court does not intend to impose a custodial sentence. After hearing the facts of a case, the court therefore will have to consider whether to impose a custodial sentence. That is a very important question. The hon. Gentleman's experience will tell him that the courts will want to think carefully about that. They will want to avoid imposing a custodial sentence if to do so would be unduly harsh, but they will also want to be certain that a case is not so serious that a custodial sentence is justified. The magistrates will also know what is available under a youth offender panel and might conclude that a case is best dealt with by means of conditional discharge or a fine.
      It has been suggested that this rather modest new clause will undermine the edifice of restorative justice, but that is not the intention. It would give flexibility and discretion to the courts, and we should trust the magistrates.
      I share the very high opinion of lay magistrates expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). Lay magistrates are very conscientious and perform an important function, and Ministers would do well to take on board what my right hon. and learned Friend said. He performed an elegant parliamentary minuet and handed a bouquet to Ministers when he commended the ideas of restorative justice and of referral to youth offender panels. Bouquets, as opposed to brickbats, are not often given to Governments by Oppositions—it certainly did not happen much before May 1997. Ministers must now think about the desirability of flexibility.
      A warning should be taken from the recent past. I was not in the House when the Criminal Justice Act 1990 was passed—although I was a Conservative supporter then—so I have no expert knowledge about whether the Labour Opposition at the time were especially astute when it came to uncovering the inadequacies of that measure. I see the Minister of State smiling in a puzzled way, but we still use the framework of the 1990 Act for sentencing in criminal courts. In their amended form, the provisions have proved durable and I am not aware of any clamour for their repeal.

      1221
      Before the 1990 Act was amended to take account of problems with unit costs and courts' inability to take previous convictions into account, it gave rise to great concerns among practitioners, who shared their unease with Members of Parliament at constituency surgeries. The Act was subsequently amended to render it more sensible and flexible. Ministers must listen to what has been said about flexibility and avoid tying the hands of the courts. Magistrates and judges dislike nothing more than being forced by law to take a certain course when the facts of the case suggest that a different course would be appropriate.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Another aspect of flexibility is worth mentioning. Has my hon. Friend noticed that the new clause also gives the Home Secretary flexibility to widen slightly the ambit of referral, which need not apply solely to the absolute first-time offender? I fully understand the Home Office's anxiety not to have too many such referrals, but does my hon. Friend agree that the provisions of the new clause would be valuable in many cases involving young people under 18 who are not absolutely first-time offenders? Would not the Home Secretary be wise to consider that aspect of the new clause as well?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention has gone on too long.
      3.30 pm
      Mr. Clappison: My right hon. and learned Friend sensibly pressed the point that we should leave it to the courts to choose horses for courses. If they are dealing with a young person, perhaps one with a previous conviction, they should have the flexibility to deal with that person as they see fit.
      I prefer to trust the courts with a measure of discretion within a sound legislative framework. The courts should have available all the powers that they need, and it should be up to them to use them as they wish. We do not know the facts of individual cases, but magistrates hear the facts and the representations. Their experience and training give them discretion on how best to deal with particular cases.
      I do not agree with all that was said by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but the Home Secretary should deal with two of the points that he made. First, victims should feel that they have a say in sentencing. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Committee for which I had the privilege of serving on, set up the advisory panel. We said that it should include representatives of victims organisations, and we received certain general assurances from the Government. I should be happy if the Home Secretary would write to tell me what voice victims will have on the panel. Does anyone on the panel represent victims organisations?
      The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also feared that the Bill spread resources too widely. It may be that resources will be inappropriately used because of the Bill's inflexibility. What are the implications for the probation service? We need flexibility, and Ministers should trust the courts.
      The Government are making slightly heavy weather of the Bill. I cannot see why they put up such fierce resistance to a sensible amendment that has won support
      1222
      on both sides of the House and in the other place. It would be in the spirit of criminal justice legislation if the Government showed some flexibility and listened to representations, even by those who essentially agree with them.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: My only qualification for speaking is that I have no qualifications. By definition, I also have no interests to declare. I have never served as a Home Office Minister, perhaps partly because my father once did, and I felt that one member of a family in two generations in the Home Office was an adequate discharge of duty for a single human group.
      Nor am I a lawyer, although my younger brother is. He is, in fact, the first member of the family in several generations to have been a lawyer. I once heard him at a local government wards inquiry, but I have never attended upon a court in which he was appearing. I have been a juror only once, when I heard a case involving a kebab house that was operating without a licence. The case took four days, but it was not enough on which to build an understanding of the entire legal system.
      Neville Cardus once said that, even if all other batsmen in the world were destroyed in a holocaust, but Tom Graveney remained, we could reconstruct the total art of batsmanship. A wise lady scholar once said that we could construct the entire administration of the Roman empire from the construction of ut with the subjunctive. However, I defy anyone to construct the full majesty of the legal system on a single case involving a kebab house.
      When I accepted an invitation to attend West London magistrates court's open day in May—the Lord Chancellor had encouraged them to hold it, and I think the practice extremely good—I did not know that I would be speaking in this debate. Indeed, it would not be dishonest to disclose that I did not know that I would speak in this debate until 2.15 pm today. I come to the Chamber with a mind of molten wax on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has most eloquently inscribed my education in these matters. Had I known that I would speak today, I should have paid even closer attention than I did to what I was told at the West London magistrates court.
      I enjoyed that visit very much, not least because of a wholly admirable dramatic scenario—it ran all day, but I heard only part of it—in the youth court, in which contemporary cases, written up and prepared in advance in line with present practice, were acted out with splendid realism. That demonstrated how valuable the open days are. It was standing room only for the general public who attended the open day.
      I have not yet heard the Government's case on new clause 1—indeed, I am preventing the Home Secretary from offering it. I listened intently to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), and I felt that there was nothing between the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman on the virtues of the proposed procedure. The real test of the issue is whether the harness in which the magistrates will work should be the leather harness commended by the great Duke of Wellington or the iron harness on which the great Napoleon Bonaparte always relied. Bonaparte's dying words may well have been, "We have enlarged the borders of glory", but it was the leather harness that did for him at the battle of Waterloo.

      1223
      During the last Parliament, a leader in The Daily Telegraph rebuked me for speaking in gentle opposition to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—then the Home Secretary—on the subject of mandatory sentences. I forget the position then taken by the present Home Secretary, and I do not seek to provoke him into telling me, but I opposed mandatory sentences on the a priori grounds that it was a mistake for judges and the Executive to be in conflict. It was especially so when the Executive in conflict with the judiciary was a Conservative one.
      Despite The Daily Telegraph, I remain of the same view today. We should trust magistrates, rather than making up their minds for them.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It is a privilege to speak to these amendments. The House is broadly agreed about the principles in this part of the Bill, although there are substantial disagreements about how the proposals might operate in practice.
      One of the few benefits of being in opposition—there were very few, and I do not recommend it—was that one was able to think about particular institutions in greater depth than one can manage when in government. Along with right hon. and hon. Friends and people outside the House, I paid particular attention to the profound defects of the youth justice system. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) have referred to the current arrangements for dealing with young offenders. To call those arrangements a system is to offer them greater dignity than they deserve.
      The system is inadequate. It lacks coherence, speed and a connection between the commission of an offence and the correction and punishment that would make it clear to the young offender that the offence should not have been committed and secure some possibility that reoffending would be avoided.
      The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the Scottish example. The Scottish children's panels have been operating for about three decades. They are criticised within Scotland more than they are admired outside—that is always the case. None the less, when I visited Glasgow to look at the operation of the panels, everyone to whom I spoke was in favour of the system. When I consulted my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party on that matter, I wrote to all of them asking—without leading the answers—what they thought about the youth justice system. It was significant that all the replies of Members representing Scottish constituencies supported the principle of children's panels. Those Members pointed out that some changes might be made, but that the principle was sound and it was working. However, every Labour Member representing an English or Welsh constituency said that those youth justice arrangements were not working and needed to be changed.
      We considered Scotland, and some of my colleagues travelled to New Zealand to examine its arrangements for family conferencing. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) mentioned, several of us have studied carefully the
      1224
      considerable innovations in the Thames Valley police district, under the leadership of the chief constable, Charles Pollard. We tried to distil that experience to ensure that we developed it against the background of the operation of the English and Welsh legal system, and in order to introduce proposals that would bring into the law those principles of restorative justice—they are contained in part I of the Bill.
      I will deal with the specific criticisms that the scheme is too inflexible. I do not think that it is, but I shall answer the point. We are not dealing merely with yet another disposal for the existing youth justice courts; we are dealing with a wholly new approach to young offenders. Although I hope to convince the House, especially sceptical Opposition Members, that the disposal has inherent flexibility, it is inappropriate merely to offer this disposal on a menu of others—alongside fines, conditional discharges or anything else.
      We want to change the way in which youth offending is corrected, which brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Those Members of the House who have had experience of working in the youth courts—as I did many years ago—or of observing the youth courts, as I did much more recently, will realise that the most disturbing fact about the current operation is that the young offender is, at best, a spectator in a theatre where other people are the actors. At worst, the young offender is wholly detached and contemptuous of what is going on.
      We have had a high-flown debate. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) speaking in Brechtian terms of alienation. He was right to do so, because that is exactly what we witness in the theatre of the youth courts. I have been in youth courts where the young offender was talked at, talked across and talked about, but never talked to. The young offender was never asked to engage his or her brain as to what he or she had done, or why—and, above all, why he or she hurt the victim of that crime. Indeed, under the current system, after the young offender has heard everyone else talk about him or her, he or she might be forgiven for thinking that there is only one victim—the young offender. Often, his or her sense of injustice at being caught and at appearing before the court is reinforced by the excuses that are trotted out on his or her behalf.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: It worries me that what happens in court under the system that will be produced by the Bill will not be so very different from what happens at present. I should be grateful for the Home Secretary's comments on that matter. The young offender will be engaged—rightly so—on the occasion when the restorative aspects of the Bill come into effect. After pleading guilty, the young offender will be sent off to the panel and the panel will then engage him. However, the Home Secretary seems to be confusing those two aspects—I am sorry to use such a harsh word as "confusing". We want to make the point that although restorative justice is extremely valuable, it is too valuable to be used in every case; the courts should be allowed to decide.
      Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. I shall deal with the inherent flexibility of the system in a moment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had his way, he would be correct in saying that the court procedures, prior to the transfer to the panel, would be similar to current

      1225
      arrangements. The similarity would reside in the fact that, in every case, the court would have to go through the often time-consuming and, in many cases, unnecessary process of seeking a pre-sentence report. That takes up time and, I regret, does not necessarily leave the court any the wiser. Under the Bill, where other conditions are satisfied and the court decides that neither an absolute discharge nor a sentence of immediate custody are appropriate—or that in some cases, as I shall explain, even if the offence is an imprisonable one, a sentence of immediate custody is not available because of the operation of other provisions—clause 1 will operate automatically to secure a transfer to the panel if the offender pleads guilty. That will help to reduce the time taken in the theatre of the court.
      An inherent feature of the arrangements is the long-standing policy of successive Governments and courts of encouraging those who are guilty to plead guilty. To conclude the formal part of the court process by a reference to the panel should act as further encouragement.
      Opposition Members have questioned the flexibility of the proposed scheme. I accept what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have said about the inflexibility of the unit fine arrangements introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Indeed, other parts of that Act were inflexible. Extraordinarily, I did not protest at the time, although I was doing other things as a member of the Opposition Front Bench. However, I should have protested had I noticed the extraordinary inclusion in the 1991 Act that previous convictions should not be taken into account. It would have been eccentric for even an old Labour Government to introduce such a measure, but, given that the original policy was published when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, I feel that it should be regarded as an abberation.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
      Mr. Straw: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As the former Solicitor-General, he may have been the author of that abberation.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. My intervention will be very brief.
      I am certainly not the author of the abberation. I am afraid that it was deep within the psyche of the Home Office at the time. The judges then construed it in a way that saddened many of us, and they did not get the Home Office out of its hole; in fact, they dug it into a deeper hole, and we had to get it out of the hole later.
      Mr. Straw: That may or may not be the case, but I do not recall seeing a Home Office civil servant moving the Second Reading of the legislation that began as the Criminal Justice Bill in 1990. My former constituency neighbour, now Lord Waddington—who was not seen as being on the soft side of the Tory party—was the Home Secretary of the day. Wherever the idea came from, Ministers had clearly discussed it collectively at some length, and had agreed on it. It was not a minor matter. It was not an issue like that involving the Passport Agency, which Home Secretaries may be forgiven for thinking has operated reasonably well for some time—while it is operating well, that is; not otherwise. However, we will not pursue that little excursion.
      1226
      The circumstances with which the Bill deals are very different from those provided for by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in regard to unit fines. Flexibility is inherent in the Bill in its present form. Referral will be automatic when there is no absolute discharge or immediate custody. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 8. There is considerable flexibility in what is actually contained in the contract of a young offender. It certainly does not say, "The case will be transferred to the panel, and this or that must happen." Subsection (2) states:
      "The terms of the programme may"—
      not "shall"—
      "include provision for any of the following".
      The subsection makes provision for
      "the offender to make financial or other reparation to any person who appears to the panel to be a victim of, or otherwise affected by, the offence".
      That amounts to a financial penalty, which the panel can impose, while taking more account of the resources of the young person involved than a court might.
      The clause requires offenders to attend
      "mediation sessions with any such victim or other person".
      It requires offenders
      "to carry out unpaid work or service … the offender to be at home at times specified in or determined under the programme"—
      that means a curfew. It requires
      "attendance by the offender at a school … the offender to participate in specified activities … the offender to present himself to specified persons … to stay away from specified places or persons"
      and so forth. If offenders refuse to comply with any of the provisions in the contracts that they have signed, they must go back to court and they will be sentenced for their original offence. That is the first part of the flexibility mechanism that has been introduced.
      Mr. Boswell: The Home Secretary has explained the provision clearly. Is it not the case, however, that, because the referral is mandatory, it will be a prerequisite for the panel to meet and draw up a contract in each case, even in cases in which—as Conservative Members have tended to argue—referral is inappropriate, and the drawing up of a contract may well be not just otiose but inimical to the cause of preparation?
      Mr. Straw: With great respect, I simply do not accept that.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: When I mentioned resource implications earlier, the Home Secretary shook his head vigorously. Is he now saying that clause 8 has no resource implications?
      Mr. Straw: No, I am not saying that. Most measures that are presented to the House have resource consequences. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 211 of the explanatory notes? I do not suggest that he has them to hand, but they contain details of the Bill's financial effects. They state—of course, these are estimates—that referrals to youth offender panels will save the probation service around £5.1 million, but will impose costs of about half a million pounds, given the revenue required for fines. Clause 6 will require some

      1227
      increased recruitment for training, which will be met by the comprehensive spending review settlement for pilot youth justice schemes in 2000, 2001 and 2002.
      Part of the purpose of the pilot scheme is to ensure not just that the scheme works, but that we have clear estimates of its total costs. I cannot say this for certain, but I believe that, if it operates efficiently it will save court costs. It ought to save on legal aid as well. Of course, there will be expenditure on the part of the youth offender panels, but I do not think that the Bill will lead to a great increase in spending overall.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Straw: I must make progress, but I will take one last intervention from the former Solicitor-General.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am extremely grateful.
      May I ask the Home Secretary about his most recent answer to a question about clause 8? Is he not making the mistake of drawing a parallel with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969? Is it not the case that, according to the Home Secretary's view of the Bill, the courts cannot be trusted to make disposals? I am talking about the inflexibility that means that unless someone is locked up as a result of a custodial sentence, or receives an absolute discharge, the courts have no discretion—the discretion is handed over to the panel. Is that not a big mistake?
      Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. It is not a question of trusting the courts; it is a question of whether the magistrates court is the appropriate forum to determine the content of the programme under the referral order. In many cases, experienced youth justice magistrates will be members of the panels.
      Mr. Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Straw: I must get on with my speech.
      In Scotland, issues of guilt and innocence are dealt with by the sheriff—a paid judicial office-holder—rather than by magistrates. The Scottish system has moved away from the idea of magistrates courts dealing with issues involving not just the sentence and disposal of young offenders, but their guilt. Our proposals require people to be experienced and professional. I have a high regard for lay magistrates: I think they recognise that dealing with young offenders requires considerable professionalism and training. Indeed, it is possible that members of the proposed panels might have to be magistrates.
      The Opposition asked whether other disposals should be available. First, let me deal with the issue of conditional discharge. It is my judgment—I make no apology for it—that conditional discharge is a hopeless disposal for young people, many of whom will have received a number of conditional discharges, or their equivalent, before even going to court. Unless a grave offence is involved, for which a conditional discharge is not appropriate anyway—I mean a serious offence; I do not mean a grave offence within the meaning of clause 53—the police will have already issued warnings and cautions.
      1228
      When I visited youth courts, I took exception to the fact that, in some cases, half the disposals were conditional discharges. Those of us who have practised in such courts know all too well that young offenders regard conditional discharges as a case of, "I got away with it again."
      In section 66 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we made it impossible for a conditional discharge to be issued by a youth court if a final warning had been issued within the previous two years. In most cases, it would not in any sense be available.
      4 pm
      There are currently severe problems with the collection of fines, even against adults—so much so that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are extremely concerned. In far too many courts throughout the country, far too many fines are remitted—in other words, cancelled—when defaulters wilfully refuse to pay. Except for a small minority—the older age group—the offenders with which this Bill deals will not have resources of their own, so the idea that a fine would be an appropriate penalty is not realistic.
      There has been a great deal of discussion of the case of the young person who goes through a red light, so let us deal with it. Statistically, the most numerous group of young offenders who transgress the red light will be aged less than 17: they cannot have a driving licence because they are under age, so they will be literally driving while disqualified from driving. It is probable that they will also be committing many other offences as well. If they have nicked a car or are driving without a licence, it is a serious offence, not a trivial one. Therefore, even if they happen to jump a red light, it is likely that they have committed other, more serious offences.
      There will be a small group of red light offenders aged 17 to 18 who have a driving licence—those who, because one has to wait a bit before getting a licence, are in the last nine months of their 17th year. Because gravity factors are already laid down for dealing with offences, most offenders from that small group who jump a light will get a police reprimand or a final warning under our scheme. They might get a fixed penalty: if they accept it, that is the end of the matter and the new arrangements are not triggered. Also, if they object to the fixed penalty, go to court and plead not guilty, the new arrangements are not triggered because they have pleaded not guilty.
      The circumstances in which a young offender has jumped a light and the arrangements are then triggered will be few and far between. My judgment is that, in those circumstances, it may well be appropriate to send the youngster to the youth panel. Youngsters in the 17 to 20 age range can commit extremely reckless driving offences. We know that roughly a quarter of all driving offences are committed by those aged between 17 and 24. In many parts of the United States—a country with which we compete for the best road safety record—if youngsters offend against traffic regulations, they are made the subject of the sort of intervention that we seek, rather than being fined or having their offence treated as a trivial matter. I hope that it is recognised that, in the few circumstances in which the new arrangements are triggered, they are appropriate.

      1229
      I have one final point on the issue of flexibility. I accept—although I doubt it—that the pilots might disclose that there are inflexibilities unanticipated by the House, or the prospect of which has so far been resisted by the Government. For that reason, clause 2(3) provides:
      "The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of this section"—
      the one that lays down the triggers—
      "as he considers appropriate for altering in any way the descriptions of offenders in the case of which the compulsory referral conditions or the discretionary referral conditions fall to be satisfied for purposes of section 1(2) or (3) (as the case may be)."
      Therefore, that flexibility is written into the Bill. The Government have no more interest than the Opposition in ending up with a scheme that is brought into disrepute because of inflexibility at the margin, so we shall watch the pilots carefully.
      My final comments relate to the provision in the Opposition new clause that would extend the conditions which have to be satisfied before there can be a referral. It contains the phrase:
      "for which a custodial sentence is available".
      I occupied the Opposition Front Bench for almost 17 years, and it was always irritating to me when clever-dick Ministers stood up and said that an amendment was "technically defective". None the less, although the Government resist the principle behind the new clause, that phrase itself is so seriously technically defective that, even if that were our only objection to the new clause—of course, it is not—it would be sufficient to make us reject it.
      The phrase describes not an offence that is imprisonable for an adult, but an offence in which a custodial sentence is available for the offender before the court. Any imprisonable offence for adults is also an offence for which custody is available for 15, 16 and 17-year-olds; but, leaving aside grave offences, custody is available for 12, 13 and 14-year olds only if the offender has previously been convicted of at least two other similar offences and has breached a supervision order in respect of one of them.
      If the new clause were accepted as drafted, we could end up with the curious situation in which, having decided that custody was not going to be used, a court could not use the transfer referral order to the panel because custody was not available for that offender, and therefore had to impose a fine or a conditional discharge. The extent to which the provision is defective and would hobble the court is obvious.
      I hope that the House accepts that I have tried to answer, as fully as I can, the points raised by Opposition Members. The provisions are extremely important. If they are successfully piloted, as I believe they will be, and with the backing of the House and the other place, we shall in years to come be able to look back on this period—indeed, on today—as an occasion on which we began the most major reform since the war of the way in which we deal with young offenders.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's tutorial on life on the Opposition Front Bench. We have no intention of spending anything like as long on the Opposition Benches before returning to the Benches that his party currently occupies. None the less, we are grateful for the manner in which he has responded to our arguments.
      1230
      Modesty forbids my revealing the source of the phrase that he has just described as technically inaccurate and defective. However, our intention in tabling new clause 1 is to make a fundamental point, which is why I shall shortly invite the House to express its view in the Lobby. I am also grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke in support of the general principle of flexibility.
      The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) failed to explain the Liberal Democrats change of heart on a provision of discretion that his noble Friends in the other place thought so important as to be persuaded to vote in favour of amending a fundamental aspect of clause 1—the "shall" to "may" amendment, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) referred. The Liberal Democrats in the other place supported that amendment, yet, not only did the Liberal Democrat Members in this place vote in Committee against the decision of their noble Friends, but they now speak in favour of the Government's position. We shall be fascinated to see what the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friends make of that when the Bill returns to the other place. I have an inkling that the question of discretion will come up again when, as seems certain, the other place is asked to consider whether the Government's scheme is correct.
      Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends spoke in favour of the general principle of additional flexibility. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) that I am glad that we tabled the new clause, not least because of the amusing and enlightening contribution that it enabled him to make. My right hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—who, not so long ago, moved from shadowing this Department to shadowing education and speaks from considerable experience and knowledge of the Bill—all spoke in favour of a degree of flexibility.
      With no disrespect to any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall, in the final analysis, rely more on the contribution of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who has 25 years' experience as a criminal barrister. Although he has difficulty with one or two elements of the new clause, I am sure that he will understand—as I am sure the Home Secretary does—the intricacies of ensuring that we have before us proposals that have not been debated in Committee. It is therefore in order for us to debate those proposals today, and we bore that in mind when drafting new clause 1. In Committee and in the debate today, the hon. Gentleman spoke from experience and pointed out that there is a lack of flexibility in the Bill which will lead to inconsistency, a sense of injustice and, in time, discrediting of the Government's proposals.
      There was nothing in the Home Secretary's remarks that responded to the issue, which I addressed in some depth, of on-the-spot fines for young offenders. By delving into clause 8, he served only to heighten our concerns. He effectively concluded that the courts cannot be trusted, a point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire made in an extremely good intervention. The more one considers the scheme, the more one sees the clear discrepancy between what would be included in a youth offender contract and

      1231
      the way in which that young person would be disposed of, for the same offence, if he or she were given an on-the-spot fine or fixed penalty notice.
      I find it extraordinary that, knowing that we were likely to have this debate today, the Minister of State found it timely yesterday to table the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999.
      Mr. Straw: Get off.
      Mr. Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Get off', but in no way have his remarks addressed the point that we have made throughout the debate. If a policeman decides to give a 16 or 17-year-old tearaway a fixed penalty notice, that is the end of it, but the court cannot have the same discretion. What is more, if the case ends up going to court, the same circumstances will result in a referral to a youth offender panel, where within the menu of the contract there is nothing available to the panel that is comparable to a fixed penalty notice.
      In addition, the panels are likely to prescribe a different course of action in the contracts that they draw up. There will be a huge variation in those contracts, compared with those of other panels, for precisely the same offence. That, too, is an inconsistency that will be the harbinger of resentment, which leads to alienation and is the very opposite of what the Government are trying to achieve.
      4.15 pm
      The Government could, particularly in Committee, have accepted that their clause is too narrowly drawn. I thought that at the very end of his remarks, the Home Secretary almost admitted that the power that he has under clause 2—which is, in any case, incorporated into our new clause—to vary all the provisions in the light of experience means that perhaps the Government have not got this right and will have to return to it in the future.
      The Government will, in any case, run into choppy waters in the other place over this issue. It is disappointing that they have not felt able at least to admit that a tiny degree of extra flexibility ought to be incorporated into the Bill. On Report, we discuss new clauses and amendments tabled by the Opposition to make a point about the Government's Bill, and those new clauses and amendments are bound, on occasion, not to have been drafted entirely correctly—but I do not believe that that should dissuade Opposition Members from pressing the point.
      We invite the House to support new clause 1 in the Lobbies because we genuinely believe that the Government are making an error of judgment. When that error comes to light, we shall at least have the satisfaction of being able to point to our attitude to the Bill, and, in years to come, the opportunity in government of putting it right.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 296.

      Division No. 230]

      [4.17 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Beroow, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Beggs, Roy

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      1232

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Luff, Peter

      Brazier, Julian

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Burns, Simon

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Madel, Sir David

      Chope, Christopher

      Maples, John

      Clappison, James

      Mates, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Collins, Tim

      Norman, Archie

      Colvin, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Paterson, Owen

      Cran, James

      Pickles, Eric

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Prior, David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan, Alan

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Evans, Nigel

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Faber, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Flight, Howard

      Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Soames, Nicholas

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Spring, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gibb, Nick

      Streeter, Gary

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Syms, Robert

      Gray, James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Green, Damian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Greenway, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Heald, Oliver

      Thompson, William

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Townend, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tredinnick, David

      Horam, John

      Trend, Michael

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Wells, Bowen

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Whittingdale, John

      Key, Robert

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Wilkinson, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Willetts, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Wilshire, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Woodward, Shaun

      Letwin, Oliver

      Yeo, Tim

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Loughton, Tim

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

      and

      Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Benton, Joe

      Alexander, Douglas

      Best, Harold

      Allan, Richard

      Betts, Clive

      Allen, Graham

      Blackman, Liz

      Ashton, Joe

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blizzard, Bob

      Austin, John

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Barnes, Harry

      Boateng, Paul

      Barron, Kevin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Beard, Nigel

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Breed, Colin

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Browne, Desmond

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      1233

      Burden, Richard

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hancock, Mike

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Cann, Jamie

      Hinchliffe, David

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Casale, Roger

      Hood, Jimmy

      Caton, Martin

      Hope, Phil

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hurst, Alan

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clelland, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Coleman, Iain

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Colman, Tony

      Jenkins, Brian

      Connarty, Michael

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Darvill, Keith

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keetch, Paul

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Efford, Clive

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ennis, Jeff

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Etherington, Bill

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Lepper, David

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fisher, Mark

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Linton, Martin

      Flint, Caroline

      Livingstone, Ken

      Flynn, Paul

      Lock, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McCabe, Steve

      Fyfe, Maria

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Galloway, George

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Gapes, Mike

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gardiner, Barry

      Macdonald, Calum

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McDonnell, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McFall, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McNamara, Kevin

      Goggins, Paul

      MacShane, Denis

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gorrie, Donald

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Grogan, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      1234

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Merron, Gillian

      Snape, Peter

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mitchell, Austin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mudie, George

      Stott, Roger

      Mullin, Chris

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stringer, Graham

      Norris, Dan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Neill, Marlin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Timms, Stephen

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Tipping, Paddy

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Todd, Mark

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pearson, Ian

      Touhig, Don

      Pickthall, Colin

      Trickett, Jon

      Pike, Peter L

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pond, Chris

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pope, Greg

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tyler, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wareing, Robert N

      Purchase, Ken

      Watts, David

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      White, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wills, Michael

      Rooker, Jeff

      Winnick, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Roy, Frank

      Wise, Audrey

      Ruddock, Joan

      Worthington, Tony

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wray, James

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. David Hanson and

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mr. Keith Hill.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 1

      YOUTH OFFENDER PANELS: FURTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 2,in page 52, line 9, leave out 'sentences' and insert 'deals with'.
      No. 3, in page 53, line 8, and insert 'paragraphs 11 and
      Insert 'paragraphs 11 and 12'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

    New Clause 3

      CONDITIONS FOR MAKING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 44(5)
      '.—(1) Before making an order under section 44(5), the Secretary of State shall—

      (a) publish a notice of his intention to make such an order and the reasons for his decision; and

      (b) consult such persons as appear to him to be representative of news gathering and reporting organisations and any other persons he considers appropriate.

      (2) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under section 44(5) until six months after the date of publication of the notice of intention under subsection (1)'.—[Mr. Greenway.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As I did in Committee, I remind the House that I have an interest as a consultant to ITV Network Ltd., but none of the matters that we are to debate this afternoon are of concern to the broadcast media. Indeed, as I said in Committee, it is the printed media rather than the broadcast media that have residual concerns about the provisions of clause 44.
      Clause 44, which was previously clause 43, seeks to clarify the law on press reporting restrictions on the identification of children and young persons under the age of 18, who may have been involved in criminal offences. The proposals as originally drafted, before the Bill began its passage through the other place, gave rise to huge anxiety and concern that they were too far-reaching and would seriously inhibit media, particularly local and regional newspapers, from reporting criminal incidents of a more or less general nature.
      Several well-known crimes were cited as events that the press would have been restricted in reporting. The appalling murder of James Bulger was one. Another was the horrific tragedy at Dunblane. The Bill does not apply to Scotland, but had such an incident occurred in England, it would have been subject to the provisions. Perhaps the most accurate example was the attack on a school playground in Wolverhampton, in which a number of children were injured and considerable bravery was displayed by a teacher, Lisa Potts.
      Arising from those concerns, changes were introduced in the other place, including some important defences to publication. One such defence would be that permission had been granted by the parents or guardians. Another would be that the criminal investigation in respect of the incident had not begun, although we still are not clear how wide or narrow that window is likely to be in practice. A third would be the inadvertent reporting of the identity of a young person. The final such case would be one in which the reporting could be considered to be in the public interest, as defined by the open reporting of crime.
      Those changes were welcome and we supported them, but the position was still not satisfactory. Many right hon. and hon. Members have been contacted by their local newspapers with expressions of concern about the implications of the restrictions for the reporting of relatively routine incidents. In particular, it was stressed that the local press often play an important and beneficial
      1236
      role—for example, when an incident such as a kidnapping has occurred—in helping the police to trace the whereabouts of the people concerned.
      Such an incident occurred recently in the Home Secretary's constituency, Blackburn. As a result of co-operation between the police and local media, the young person, who sadly had fallen into the control of a known sex offender, was located and taken back to his home and to safety. There is no doubt that the press often report such incidents responsibly and constructively, with beneficial consequences for the criminal process.
      Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that we are discussing circumstances in which young people under the age of 18 are the victims of crime, not the possible perpetrators of the crime?
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of these matters. It will become clear that there is a differentiation along the lines that she suggests. That is the essence of our concern and the point of the new clause.
      In Committee, in response to the anxieties that I have outlined, the Government tabled an amendment that limited the effect of the immediate prohibition on reporting to the identification of young persons under the age of 18 who were likely to be the accused or the defendant in a criminal case. With regard to victims or witnesses to a criminal incident, the provision will have effect only if the Secretary of State has laid an order that is debated and approved subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses.
      We must consider whether there is a case for a wider prohibition than is currently enshrined in our law in respect of a young person who may be a defendant or an accused in a criminal court. Having given the matter a great deal of thought, Conservative Members have accepted, as I told the Minister in Committee, that perhaps there is such a case.
      Perhaps the most celebrated example of the type of abuse that the Bill would now prevent was that of Mr. Adam Dent, an extremely bright 15-year-old who was already an undergraduate. He was falsely accused of rape and his academic career was ruined as a consequence of the publicity. He was not only not convicted but never charged. I have done a little research since the Bill was in Committee and I understand that that case took place when the previous Government introduced the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Some consideration was given to whether a prohibition such as that which the Government are introducing in the Bill might have been appropriate to that legislation, but one could not be incorporated because the content of the Bill restricted the actions of the then Government and they could not make such an amendment.
      Although we are prepared to accept that there is a case for strengthening the law further to protect young persons who have been accused of a crime, some concern remains. The Minister will be aware of a case that has been cited in the general discussion about the provisions. A 16-year-old girl was arrested as she emerged from a tunnel from which she had been protesting about a road development and a picture of her beaming face appeared across the top of the front page of The Times; I am told that the photograph is still on its website. She was

      1237
      identified by every national newspaper except one. She was never prosecuted. Clearly, if such an incident arose again, national newspapers would have to rely on some of the other defences and it remains to be seen whether those defences will prove adequate.
      In spite of our agreement that there is a case in principle for further change, it is likely that the new provisions—even in respect of young persons who are defendants—will cause some difficulty and in due course will test the Home Secretary's willingness to work with the Press Complaints Commission to discuss and review the best long-term approach to these matters. I hope that those remarks are helpful to the Minister.
      We come now to the nub of the current continuing difficulty. The Government provided some relief for victims and witnesses and for local newspaper editors by deciding, with the support of the PCC, to incorporate in the Bill the requirement that those prohibitions will not apply to a young person who is a victim or a witness unless and until the House and the other place agree an affirmative resolution in respect of an order to be laid by the Secretary of State. I challenged the Minister in Committee by suggesting that that was an apparent climbdown. I use the word "apparent" advisedly, because we still do not know the Government's long-term intentions.
      I tried to test the Minister on that issue in Committee, but his answer was not entirely reassuring. I have revisited what he said. I am not in any way challenging the sincerity of his remarks; I am simply drawing attention to their inadequacy in respect of providing reassurance for the print media. He said
      "the provisions should not be implemented after Royal Assent unless there has been a further debate in both Houses."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 June 1999; c. 232.]
      He gave no indication of what the time scale for such a course of events might be. He also said that the Government did not intend the proposals to have the force of law unless the Secretary of State brought forward an order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses, to the effect that the provisions be enacted. There was no suggestion of the timetable.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Peter Viggers: I am confused about this matter and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me. Does he anticipate that the order made by the Secretary of State will be general, allowing the provision to be implemented in all cases, or will it relate to specific individuals and specific offences?
      Mr. Greenway: I anticipate that it will be general. As I understand the scheme that the Government have agreed with the PCC and my noble Friend Lord Wakeham, the provision will not be implemented unless and until an order is made to implement it and both Houses will have the opportunity to hold a debate on the affirmative procedure to say whether they approve of it.
      We are not clear about the Government's long-term intentions. Although there is now a sense of relief and they are off the hook because they have accepted an amendment, we are left with the prospect of the provision, which has caused such concern to regional and local newspapers in particular, lying on the statute book waiting
      1238
      for the day when the Home Secretary gets up one morning, decides to lay the order and asks both Houses to approve it in a week or two.
      I may have exaggerated what might happen, but that is where we stand. We need more clarification of the Government's long-term intentions. Are they in favour of or against implementing the provision? If they have decided that it is not such a good idea, why incorporate it in the Bill in the first place? What is the point? Why was it not agreed before we began Committee proceedings that there should be a prohibition in respect of persons under 18 who are likely to be the accused in a criminal trial? The witnesses and victims could have been left out of that altogether. But no, the provision remains in the Bill and we have simply this order-making power.
      Given that the provision has been incorporated, one can assume only that the Government want to retain the opportunity in case at some future date they are minded to implement it. Today we need to know what the circumstances are which would prompt the Government to implement this provision through the order-making power. I put that question to the Minister in Committee but, as I am sure the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) will agree, answer came there none. That is why we are seeking further answer today.
      Furthermore, the correspondence between the Home Secretary and my noble Friend Lord Wakeham, which the Minister kindly placed in the Library and I have now had the opportunity to review, makes it clear that in any event the PCC has agreed that there will be a review of the code of practice which relates to the protection of children who might be harmed by publicity in relation to a crime in which they were involved. That encourages me to return to my earlier point: in such circumstances if the PCC is undertaking its review, surely it would be better to remove the victim and witness provision from the Bill and await the outcome of the review. Sadly, that is neither the Government's choice, nor the option before us today.
      We tabled new clause 3 with three clear objectives. When the Minister responds I hope that he will treat them in the spirit in which they have been proposed and try to give not just us but a lot of worried editors in local newspapers some greater reassurance. Our first objective is to have that greater reassurance about the circumstances which might persuade the Home Secretary to make an order under this provision. What do the Government have in mind that makes them want to keep the provision in the Bill? The second objective is to give voice to the anxieties of local newspaper editors who, from all our experience, generally take a responsible attitude to reporting incidents involving young children. I know that point is of concern to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who raised it in Committee. The third objective is to impose a better framework for the order-making power, should the Home Secretary decide that it were appropriate to implement it.
      In the spirit of the reassurances already given, one assumes by implication that the Government are not currently minded to implement these provisions, but we have to accept that the circumstances could change. If they do and the Home Secretary decides to implement this, he would have nothing to fear from a requirement, such as that in the new clause, to announce an intention to bring forward the order and state his reasons. In all respects this first element of new clause 3 is entirely

      1239
      unexceptional and unobjectionable. It simply requires the Secretary of State to state that he intends to make an order and to give his reasons for doing so.
      The second element is that the Secretary of State, having made his announcement, should consult. This might occur several years hence when there might be a different Home Secretary and, with any luck, a different Government. Surely consultation would be appropriate. It is unthinkable that the Home Secretary would feel it unnecessary to discuss the issue again with print and broadcast media. It is entirely likely that local newspapers would want to talk to their local Members of Parliament about their concerns about what the Government have in mind. Indeed, if the check of an affirmative resolution of both Houses is to have any value, right hon. and hon. Members will need to know how they are to use their vote. If there is to be no consultation and they are simply to be whipped through the Lobby in five seconds flat because the order has been laid and they have been told to vote for it, that provides no protection whatever. Therefore, we need consultation so that right hon. and hon. Members will know how to vote or, if they are being told to vote for it, at least they will have discussed the matter with their local newspaper and will understand the implications of it for that paper.
      Furthermore, there must be consultation to take account of the implications of an order for all aspects of self-regulation of the press and the review of the code of conduct, which the PCC is undertaking and which has been published in the letters that have been laid in the House. It is entirely reasonable to have consultation on a proposal to lay an order.
      Subsection (2) of new clause 3 would require a six month delay. Surely time for reflection on the introduction and imposition of such a draconian press reporting prohibition would not be a bad idea. We often talk about the need to avoid knee-jerk legislation. Such a reaction is a bad idea, but it takes five or six months to get primary legislation through the House, unless there is agreement on a fast track approach. An order-making power that is subject only to affirmative resolution could be through the House in two or three weeks. What is wrong with requiring a six-month delay before making an order?
      We should resist the temptation to make an order as a knee-jerk reaction to a gross abuse committed by one element of the tabloid press. The best response is to give time for reflection. The local and regional press may have acted responsibly following the enactment of this legislation. They should not be penalised because of the wrongdoing of one tabloid newspaper, which committed such a gross abuse that everyone said something must be done about it. People may say, "The order-making power is already in the Bill, so what's the reason for delay? Let's get on with it." However, we think that it would be no bad thing to have a six-month delay.
      If the Government, on reflection, have decided that they will not implement this provision for the time being, and are persuaded by the argument that it will, hopefully, not be necessary, what is wrong with incorporating a six-month delay as a safeguard?
      Those are reasonable safeguards and make better sense of the Government's position. They do not inhibit the power to impose the restriction, but they would enable
      1240
      local newspapers and other responsible media to ask the Home Secretary to think again if he were minded to make an order under clause 44(5). Most important of all, it would give right hon. and hon. Members the chance to reflect on and understand the implications and consequences of a decision to restrict press freedom in an important area of public life if the public have a genuine right to know.
      The new clause is the very minimum that the House should expect and insist on from a Government who preach the doctrine of freedom of information, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Viggers: As I have not previously spoken on the Bill, may I say that I welcome it in general terms? Some of us occasionally go out with our local police force and see the behaviour of young people late at night, and we have all heard about young people committing burglary offences. Whatever the crime, the gap between the commission of the alleged offence and the bringing of the offender to trial must be kept as short as possible. That is the main thrust of the Bill, and I very much welcome it.
      The detail is important, and we are discussing a particular point about publicity. The courts in England and Wales operate on the principle that court business should be conducted openly. That is an important part of our justice system. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the court may, in certain circumstances, prohibit the name and address of an individual being revealed. As the law currently stands, there are also important provisions protecting young people, specifically section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which allows a court to prohibit the reporting of the name, address, school or other particulars that identify children and young persons under the age of 17.
      5 pm
      I come to my first question to the Minister. I have not taken part in the Committee stage of the Bill, so I would be interested to know why the Government propose to restrict reporting of young people under the age of 18, rather than 17. The age at which restrictions may be imposed is being increased, whereas in most other sectors—I think particularly of homosexual law so-called reform—the age is being reduced. I should be grateful if the Minister would remind hon. Members why, in the case of reporting restrictions, the age is being increased, so that people under the age of 18, rather than 17, are protected.
      I welcome the fact that the clause relates not only to England and Wales, but to Northern Ireland and to courts-martial. I am always vigilant to see where legislation shall apply. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, it seemed strange that, frequently, I had to come to the House to introduce legislation relating to Northern Ireland that replicated legislation that had been introduced for England and Wales. In so far as it is possible, legislation that applies to the entire United Kingdom should be introduced.
      Similarly, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence on two of the past three sessions when it has considered the Armed Forces Bill—the Bill to change armed forces legislation specifically relating to courts-martial and other matters—I welcome the fact that courts-martial are specifically referred to in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill. Again, wearing my

      1241
      hat as Chairman of the Select Committee, it seemed strange that courts-martial should be subject to separate legislation. Again, one would like legislation to be applied to England, Wales, Northern Ireland and courts-martial.
      The central point of the new clause is to ask whether the Government have decided to implement clause 44(5). I was surprised when I read how broadly it was drafted. It simply says that subsection (4)(b), which restricts publication in cases of witnesses, or those who have been victims of crime, will apply
      "on or after such date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State."
      It does not say whether the Secretary of State must introduce an order to implement the whole of subsection (4)(b); I should like to know the answer to that question. Will the Government introduce a broad order that will implement all of paragraph (b), or will it be open to the Government to decide, for example, that that paragraph will apply only to witnesses? Will they perhaps introduce legislation by affirmative resolution to ensure that subsection (4)(b) will apply only to individuals against whom an offence is alleged to have been committed?
      The provision is extremely broad and confirms the view that I have had for a number of years that amendments to existing legislation and legislation brought in rapidly tend not to be good legislation. It would be far better if the Government, having not made up their mind on the point and having left it wide open, subject only to affirmative resolution, left the matter and decided that, if they wished to implement the necessary legislation, they would introduce primary legislation.
      The manner in which the House is treated by the Government means that we are not overtaxed in terms of legislation. The House could discuss matters of great note for a longer time. The terms of the Bill are far too loose, wide and arbitrary. Knee-jerk reaction to events in the tabloid press can often lead the Government to introduce bad legislation. Do I hear the words, "dangerous dogs"? I ask the House to support the entirely reasonable new clause, which has been effectively moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
      Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Minister recall the Standing Committee's first sitting, on 25 May, when I mentioned that there would be disagreement about the Bill's reporting provisions? I went on to say:
      "I urge the Government to think seriously about the media's reservations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 May 1999; c. 5.]
      Does he agree that that one sentence, on which the Government acted, did more to alter the Bill's course than the hours of waffle that we have heard from the hon. Member for Lymeswold—the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)?
      In a previous career, I was a court reporter, and I am approaching the issue from that perspective. Will the Minister tell us why, if there had been so much discussion and liaison with the media, the draconian ban on reporting was proposed initially? I suggest that, far from encouraging less court reporting—especially in the weekly and provincial media—we should be encouraging greater coverage of court cases.
      Since the Government's amendments were tabled in Committee, what further representations have Minsters received from the Newspaper Society and the Guild of
      1242
      Editors—who represent those working in the real newspaper world, and have experience of producing weekly and evening newspapers?
      In Committee, the Minister gave the impression that everyone in the newspaper world believed that the Government's amendments would resolve the problem. However, they do not believe that. In an ideal world—as hon. Members have already said—the provision would be withdrawn and proposed again later, so that it might be debated fully. Presumably, however, we are simply being asked to accept the lesser of two evils.
      The vast majority of cases involving young children that are reported are reported in the weekly and provincial press. Newspapers are wedded to their communities—to which they have a responsibility—and, indeed, behave responsibly. I again ask the Minister to give an assurance that the one or perhaps two occasions on which a national tabloid newspaper has gone over the top will not be used as an excuse for a blanket ban on the weekly press.
      I received a letter from the editor-in-chief of Essex County Newspapers—which produces two evening newspapers and various weekly newspapers in the county of Essex—in which she states:
      "Editors and media experts fear that"—
      the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill—
      "will prevent publication of matters of legitimate public interest …
      The Bill will make it an offence for the media to identify under 18-year-olds who might be victims, witnesses or the perpetrators of crimes under investigation. The ban will last until legal proceedings (if any) commence or the young person reaches the age of 18."
      The provision is a threat to freedom of the press. It would prevent the media from carrying a great deal of inoffensive and unharmful material. Indeed, many items that serve the public interest, by highlighting the effect of crime, would be banned. A newspaper would be barred, for example, from publishing a report about a 17-year-old pop singer who had a precious gold record stolen. It could also prevent a newspaper from printing an interview with a 17-year-old student who saw a fight break out on a football terrace—which is not something that ever happens in Colchester, although it does happen elsewhere.
      It is true that an editor could escape prosecution by pleading before magistrates either that the material was in the public interest or that the parties, or their guardians, had given written consent. However, the presumption against publication would serve to discourage the media from pursuing such stories.
      Protecting young offenders is not the point of the provision, as they are already provided with anonymity under current legislation. Neither is the point to protect victims of sex offenders, as they, too, are already provided with anonymity.
      Irene Kettle, the editor-in-chief, continues:
      "My concern is that the media will find itself unable to properly report a wide range of events if everyone under 18 who is either a victim of any crime or a witness must be anonymous …
      It is unclear when the ban would become active. Would, for example, a young accident victim or missing child have to stay anonymous because of police involvement and the possibility of a prosecution?"
      She later says:
      "The public interest defence is unsatisfactory. It would place editors in the position of having to second guess a court's attitude."

      1243
      The new clause relates to the Government amendments moved in Committee in response to the criticisms of the original draft of the Bill on reporting restrictions. We welcome the Government's movement on the issue, but it is only one step and many more are required. The Government amendments were designed to ensure that the reporting restrictions in the Bill relating to young victims and witnesses could be implemented only if a draft order to that effect was approved by affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. Following widespread criticism of the proposals, the Government have chosen to suspend the implementation of the reporting restrictions and have said that they want regulation to work. We all hope that it will.
      In Committee, the Minister said:
      "Given the reach of clause 43's restrictions and the number of reports that they might affect, and given the possibility that our aims might be achievable through other means, it is right that the provision should not be implemented after Royal Assent unless there has been further debate in both Houses. If the amendments are accepted, we"—
      the Government—
      "are bound to undertake to keep the case for implementation under regular review, and I am happy to give such an undertaking."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 June 1999; c. 232.]
      We have said all along that we understand and share the Government's aim to provide greater protection for the privacy of young victims and witnesses. However, the Government seemed to get into a mess with their original proposals—otherwise why the rushed amendments? It became clear that the scope of the restrictions and the practicalities were not thought through—again, otherwise why the Government amendments?
      The new clause would ensure that should the Government—or a future Government—decide to go ahead with the proposals, an order would have to be placed before Parliament for approval and the Government would be required to consult representatives of the media—more than just Lord Wakeham. A delay of six months before implementation would also be imposed. We appreciate the thinking behind that. It seems clear that consultation was non-existent or substandard before the Bill was published and it is understandable following that failure that we should want to impose a requirement for consultation in future.
      The Newspaper Society has welcomed the Government's amendments in Committee, but it feels that the proposals are still hanging over the newspapers. That is particularly true of the weekly and provincial press. I should be happy if the Minister could divide the proposed ban—if it ever came in—to put the national press in a separate category from the responsible provincial weekly press.
      The new clause would mean that at least representatives of the media would be guaranteed further consultation if any Government decided to go ahead with the proposals. We support the new clause and we invite the Conservatives to press it to a vote.
      Miss Kirkbride: I do not really have an interest to declare, but before I became a Member of Parliament I earned my living as a journalist on a national daily newspaper. It could be said that the interests of my former colleagues give me a specific interest in the debate, but I
      1244
      do not have a financial interest. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
      We are concerned because of the original proposal. The fact that the Government entered the debate by suggesting a blanket ban on the reporting of any person under 18 who was involved in any way—as the accused or the victim—in a potential criminal offence leads us to have suspicions about their motives.
      5.15 pm
      It is right and proper that the Government have climbed down by taking on board the legitimate concerns of the press. However, the fact that they started with a draconian ban—which would have been unworkable and unacceptable causes us concern. I therefore support our aim to restrict the Government's ability to introduce a ban in this area.
      The use of affirmative resolutions may be dangerous, as major changes to public policy must be made by the proper legislative procedures. They must go through both Houses of Parliament and all stages. There should not be a one-off vote late at night, when many of us may not be totally aware of what is proposed. The proposal must be in the Bill and not in the small print, waiting for a moment when the Government think that they can get away with it.
      The new clause must be considered; a resolution could not be pushed through as a result of the six-month consultation period. There would be no question of the Government bouncing the proposal through on the back of disinterest, lack of understanding or potential emotion following an incident that has caused public anxiety.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asked why we are now talking about the age of 18 for reporting restrictions, when many other activities are licensed at 16 or 17. The extension of the protection of anonymity to the age of 18 seems intriguing.
      For victims, or the accused, at risk of potential embarrassment by being named in court—I am thinking of rape victims—there is anonymity. However, we are concerned that the Government are proposing to give anonymity in matters that go beyond sexual offences.
      We do not know whether the Government are proposing a blanket ban on naming all victims of criminal offences under the age of 18, or a specific ban in certain circumstances. For example, would it have been possible, desirable or rational to try to introduce a ban on the reporting of what happened at Dunblane? The Scottish example is inappropriate, because Scotland has a different criminal law. Sadly, however, such an event could happen anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is simply not reasonable that the British public should not be informed. The press may have behaved badly at Dunblane, and I do not wish to defend some of the actions of my former colleagues. There may have been painful intrusion into the parents' bereavement, but it is not right to restrict the ability of the press to report an incident such as Dunblane.
      A road accident might lead to a criminal investigation. A group of young people died in a bus in my constituency. If a criminal investigation had resulted, perhaps because of the involvement of a drunk driver, would the national or local press have been banned from reporting the accident, which of course was a matter of huge public concern in my constituency and beyond?

      1245
      What do the Government have in mind? Sadly, young people are sometimes kidnapped by paedophiles for their sexual gratification. Surely the press should be able to report that. The police say that the evidence that they get from the public in the first few days of an investigation, when the incident gets into the press and causes a sensation, often helps them to put together a picture of the offender. I cannot believe that the Government intend to block that.
      In all the instances that I have mentioned, the public interest is hugely served by the press being able to report. The Government are setting out to protect the victims, but often they are protected by the facts becoming known. The press should not have to worry about a public interest defence and obtaining consent for publication. The parents in a kidnapping, for example, would be totally traumatised and incapable of a rational decision.
      What circumstances could possibly arise in which the Government would want to give anonymity to victims under 18? Do they intend a blanket or a specific ban? If they intend a specific ban on a named individual, how can they hope to legislate through Parliament quickly enough to stop the press publishing? The House, I am pleased to say, does not sit seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. I can only assume that the Government intend a blanket ban. I fail to understand how they will be able to take account of the circumstances that I have described.
      Will the Minister give us a very concrete, albeit hypothetical, example of circumstances in which he would use the provision and explain why it would protect the victim under the age of 18? Why should the House give the Government a legislative vehicle to introduce what would, in my view, be an unacceptable restriction on press freedom?
      Mr. Dawson: I shall make a brief contribution. It is saddening and unfortunate that so few Conservative Members recognise the crucial element of this matter. They have spoken—rightly—about press freedom and the public interest, about the need to know and about the rights of the press in a free society to report news, but they have not mentioned the interests of children.
      The Government's approach is balanced, proper and responsible. I hope that Conservative Members will consider the coverage of children and childhood that appears in the local press, as well as in the national tabloids. I contend that the press does not understand children and the reality that they face in this country, nor that childhood is a time for exploration, growth and development.
      What are the Government's reasons for proposing this measure? That question has been asked rhetorically, but I shall answer it. The proposals are necessary precisely because the years before 18 are the time of childhood. Young people below 18 have no vote and play very little part in civic society. They have few forms of redress, and they lack the confidence to engage with their local press.
      Mr. Bob Russell: If things are so bad in the weekly provincial press, why have the Government agreed to defer implementation of the proposal?
      Mr. Dawson: I think that that deferral stems from the balanced approach that the Government have adopted. The solution lies with the responsible press and with
      1246
      Conservative Members. In Committee, I wondered why editors and journalists, both locally and nationally, do not talk to young people about the coverage that they are given. That is a serious point. What are the perceptions of young people's organisations of the way in which young people are treated?
      Miss Kirkbride: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The proposal is to ban items in the press covering possible criminal offences whose victims are under 18. Will the hon. Gentleman give a specific example of when such a ban would be right?
      Mr. Dawson: I was about to give an example of detrimental coverage, which involved a young victim of sexual abuse—one of the most serious crimes conceivable. The crime was reported in the local newspaper. The victim's relative was taken to court, and neither perpetrator nor victim was identified. However, the headlines were excruciating. The treatment of the story was grossly insensitive. Nothing in the paper said who that young person was or where she lived, but she knew who she was, and she was mortified by the reports of her case.
      5.30 pm
      The Government are trying to reflect the fact that even when serious offences are quite properly reported, the press should be far more sensitive to the experience of victims, especially children and adolescents who face a mixture of dilemmas, confusions and difficulties.
      Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Gentleman's example would not be covered by the Government's proposals as it is already covered by restrictions on identifying victims of rape. A blanket ban on identifying people under 18 would make no difference. Press coverage would be even more general if it were restricted as the Government propose.
      Mr. Dawson: I do not agree. My point is more wide ranging and subtle than that. Opposition Members are being complacent, and they should recognise the problem. Neither in Committee nor today have I heard any Opposition Member recognise insensitive press reporting of children. Children are routinely described as being the root of problems. Children in care—about whom I may feel unusually sensitive—are routinely described either as villains or, in the most saccharine and cloying terms, as victims.
      Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned about reporting of the cases of young people under the existing law. Does he favour implementing subsection 4(b), and if so, why not now?
      Mr. Dawson: The Government are wise to strike a balance and to give the media an opportunity to reflect, as all of us should, on its attitudes towards young people. We should listen more to children and take more account of what they say. If the media could do that, we might resolve some of the problems with which the Bill is intended to deal.
      Mr. Llwyd: I regret to say that I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)

      1247
      rather patronising. He implied that Opposition Members have no regard for the rights of children, and I am sure that I speak for all of us in disagreeing with him. I am vice-chairman of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Wales, and I have consistently advocated the rights of children since I was elected to Parliament. I shall continue to do so.
      My commitment does not undermine my need to examine legislation. If I thought that the Government's proposal would further the interests of children in any way, I would not speak against it, and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would not adopt such a patronising stance. Speaking as a father, I can say that we all respect children.
      Mr. Dawson: May I make it clear that I did not intend to be patronising? I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to children's rights, and am glad to hear him express it.
      Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that acknowledgement and for putting the record straight.
      This part of the Bill will have huge repercussions. Earlier, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) used the word "draconian"; that might be an understatement. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) described the offence that would be created. The only way to avoid the risk of prosecution is for editors to apply to a court to lift the ban when it is in place.
      There are other concerns about the procedure. The Home Office suggests that the police will decide when the ban is triggered, and that the police will be the first to apply for a court order in such cases. In relation to free speech, are we happy for the police to acquire even greater influence over what can or cannot be published before legal proceedings? Will there be a risk of public prosecution if editors publish uncontroversial stories that magistrates do not like?
      I too have seen disgraceful reports, but they are not the general rule; they are very much the exception. By and large, our regional press are extremely good; they serve the interests of the public and of politicians. They do a darn good job. We should not tar them all with the same brush because of the one or two instances of indefensible behaviour to which reference has rightly been made.
      A ridiculous situation is envisaged in the measure: that if a group of youngsters were to be named, it would be possible to ask for permission beforehand. That is rather cumbersome. The veto would further complicate matters; it could be manipulated to avoid publicity—for example, where a parent might be in dispute with a local authority as to the standard of its care of his or her child. Even a technical objection would neither give nor veto consent. The public interest defence to which the hon. Member for Colchester referred is not a catch-all to meet concerns. Day in and day out, editors will no doubt be at risk of committing a criminal offence for routine reporting.
      Of course, the type of reporting to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred should be criminal behaviour. However, such reporting does not occur often, thank heavens. By and large, we have a responsible press. Like all hon. Members, I receive letters
      1248
      from the regional press. I refer especially to the Western Mail and the Daily Post—the daily newspapers that serve Wales. Those papers do a good job, although they do not report enough of my party's doings—I shall not go into that now. [Interruption.] However, to be serious, they do a reasonable job. I have been reading those newspapers for about 30 years and, with hand on heart, I can say that I have never seen a report of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. No doubt, he was talking about a tabloid report.
      We must try to put the matter into context. Do we really want editors to be constantly looking over their shoulders, having to second-guess whether a court would decide that a public interest defence will succeed or fail? That is not healthy for any kind of press. It is not healthy for freedom of speech—as was pointed out earlier. The measure is astonishing from a Government who are talking about freedom of information.
      Editors would be able to plead public interest or written consent in defence before a magistrates court. However, if the Crown Prosecution Service decided to prosecute for the identification of witnesses, the only defence would be that the editor did not know that the ban had been triggered and that the material published identified the young person concerned. It is a tenuous and unsatisfactory matter. The Government have not proved the need for automatic restrictions—especially on the identification of young witnesses. That is not justified.
      It is questionable, at least, whether the Bill conforms with article 10 of the European charter relating to freedom of expression. Apart from the uncertainty about when the ban is triggered, there are problems over the written-consent defence, and the reasons why a public-interest defence application for the ban to be listed for the sake of justice might not well apply to many uncontroversial stories.
      Of course, the papers can go to the trouble of finding a magistrate or instructing a lawyer, but that is not really practicable, especially in the case of the regional press. I feel that a rather large sledgehammer is being taken to crack a rather small perceived nut. Let me again refer to the section 39 orders, which apply to the identification of youngsters. Evidence suggests that magistrates will be restricted, and that cannot be good for free speech.
      Finally, let me say that the absence of a requirement for the Attorney-General's fiat for prosecutions deprives the media of a safeguard, in the form of consistency in prosecution policy. I consider that to be a public-interest matter, and a very important one.
      I have the greatest possible regard for children's rights, and if I thought they were being infringed I would not be speaking in this way. I sincerely believe, however, that this part of the Bill is wrong in principle, and may well lead to a denial of free speech. That cannot be good for any of us.
      Mr. David Wilshire: Let me reassure the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that I am not implacably opposed to the Bill, or to clause 44. I mention the hon. Gentleman because something that he said underlines my reason for wishing to speak. If I remember correctly, he said that the media did not understand children. My guess is that huge numbers of editors, sub-editors, photographers, reporters et al are

      1249
      parents, and sweeping generalisations are at the heart of my concerns and, I think, those of others. It is very easy to have a knee-jerk reaction.
      It is a pleasure to ask this Minister questions, and I know that he will respond to them fully. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Bill seeks to achieve, and, in principle, I do not oppose the powers that are being sought in clause 44. Of course abuses are taking place, and harm is being done to some young people; but—and it is on the "but" that I think we should focus—censoring the media, for whatever reason, should not be undertaken lightly. However sensible the motive may be, it is still censorship of the media.
      Let me make a confession. I am one of those people who, every so often, have an overwhelming desire to censor the media. It usually takes me late at night, when I have stopped thinking too clearly. When, on the following morning, I muse on my thoughts of the night before, a little mature reflection reminds me of the inherent dangers of what I advocated the night before. Even when my motives of the night before were good, I realise the following day that reflection pays. I feel that a little mature reflection this afternoon, and a little mature reflection before these powers are used, is needed now.
      I did not serve on the Standing Committee, and I have not heard all that has been said about the Bill; but I understand that, according to the procedures of the House, if a Bill comes to us on Report it means that someone—presumably the Speaker—has decided that an issue has not been debated or has not been debated fully, or that there are other reasons for bringing the Bill back to the House. I submit that there is a good reason for us to debate the Bill this afternoon, and I urge the Minister to explain again why he wants the powers that clause 44 would enable him to exercise. Surely there can be some occasions when publication is in the public interest, and even in the interests of the victims themselves. The Government are seeking significant powers of censorship, so I believe that we are right to debate them this afternoon and to require full explanation and justification of the proposals.
      5.45 pm
      More significant is the need for a spot of mature reflection before the powers, if they are approved by the House, are used, and that is the purpose of the new clause. It would defend the Government of the day, whatever their political persuasion, from the late-night, snap decision forced through the House when perhaps people like me are not thinking as clearly as we might and a bit of time for consideration would not come amiss.
      When I look back on some of my instantaneous judgments, I often realise that my motives, the research that was carried out, the analysis I made of the issues and amount of time I spent consulting other people and listening to them were somewhat lacking. I have a sense that the same would be true of any Government that instantly decided to introduce a ban. Just as I try to test my motives the next day, the Government must provide the opportunity for the public at large, the affected media and the House to test their motives, test their logic, listen to their justifications and ensure that they have consulted and arrived at sensible conclusions.
      That is why I support new clause 3: all it does is protect the Home Secretary of the day from getting it wrong by indulging in knee-jerk reactions. It simply requires the
      1250
      Home Secretary, before he uses the powers in clause 44, to give notice that he is going to do so—instead of just instantly doing it, he announces that that is what he intends to do. He is then given the opportunity to consult before using the powers. Consulting and listening never did anyone any harm, and the more serious the powers in question, the greater the need for consultation.
      The new clause would also make a provision, currently lacking in the Bill, requiring the Home Secretary to explain exactly what he is doing, and why, to the House of Commons. If any institution in this country is the guardian of the rights of individuals, it is this House, so when the rights of individuals are taken away—censorship does take away rights—there has to be an adequate explanation of which the House approves. I would be perfectly prepared to vote with the Minister if his explanation were adequate, so I do not think that he need be frightened of new clause 3. New clause 3 does not strike at the purpose of the Bill, nor would it remove any powers from the Home Secretary. All it does is improve the decision-making process by allowing time for mature reflection.
      Thinking about what reply I might receive, I concluded that I shall be told that I am overly worried, that the Government have no intention of doing what I do late at night, and that, since they are such a sensible Government, they do not need protection from themselves. The reply will be put more politely than I have put it—
      Mr. Boateng: It depends on how long he goes on.
      Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman is not in a good mood, I might go on even longer, and he will have even more to explain. If he is tempted to tell the House that he has absolutely no intention of acting instantaneously, he will take away the only reason that he has for opposing the new clause.
      Mr. Viggers: I remind my hon. Friend that the Government have so far not lost a Division, and all that is required is that the Home Secretary snap his fingers, and the terracotta warriors will wander through the Lobbies and the Bill will be passed.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am incredibly tempted by that course of action, but I have been trying to be helpful and friendly and not too aggressive to Labour Members, so I shall resist that temptation, although I agree with my hon. Friend.
      All I am saying to Ministers is that if they have no intention of acting instantaneously, the new clause will in no way mess up their Bill. If they intend to take a decent amount of time to make proposals, consult, listen and seek our approval, no harm whatsoever will come from accepting the new clause. Knowing the Minister of State to be a kind, reasonable man who wants to be generous on a Thursday afternoon, I am sure that he will support the new clause.
      Mr. Tim Collins: I shall be brief because I know that the Minister is anxious to respond to the many excellent points made by Conservative Members during the debate.
      I entirely accept the points made by those who have said that they do not question the Government's motivations. I am sure that the Government did not get

      1251
      up in the morning thinking, "How can we penalise the media?" They are genuinely motivated by a wish to protect children, as are Conservative Members, but we happen to think that the Government are not going about that in a terribly effective way.
      Some in the media do, perhaps, question the motivations of a Home Office that, it will be remembered, not too long ago sought an injunction to prevent the publication of a report that turned out to have been leaked by the Home Office. None the less, I shall pass over that point.
      I shall concentrate my remarks on comments made to me by Mr. Mike Glover, the editor of the Westmorland Gazette in my constituency. It is a fine newspaper, which is very well dug in with its local community but which none the less has serious concerns about these issues. Mr. Glover's first point is that the problem with any such legislation, whether or not it comes into effect after the Government have made welcome concessions, is that if we prevent the press from publishing accurate information, we do not stop inaccurate information circulating elsewhere. There will still be gossip and people will retail versions of stories in pubs, on street corners and over their neighbour's fence. If we do not publish the accurate information, we may end up damaging children and causing them more difficulty than if we had allowed the press to report the facts straightforwardly and immediately.
      Mr. Glover's second point is that the Westmorland Gazette is a fine newspaper and very successful in its area, but it does not have the largest circulation and it is not the best-known publication in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to change that.
      Mr. Collins: I am, as the Minister says, doing my best. It follows that that newspaper, like many other regional and local weekly newspapers, does not have at its disposal a large and well-financed legal department that is able to offer the editor a great deal of well-researched legal advice on these very difficult decisions. The restrictions could therefore be particularly onerous for local and regional newspapers—national newspapers probably have large legal departments and do not run the risk of editors being caught out.
      I might add that since the debate has so far concentrated on the print media, it is worth noting that we are dealing with measures that will also relate to the broadcast media. A station such as Border Television—the smallest ITV station—in my constituency does not have a large legal department. The pressures on editors that we have described are even more acute for television stations because the time between a story breaking and the time when the broadcast media would expect to put it out could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, be a matter of mere minutes. How can stations make accurate decisions on such matters so swiftly?
      Mr. Glover's third and final point, which is important, is that the Home Office proposals, which would be aided by new clause 3, would break into the important co-operative relationship between local police forces and
      1252
      local newspapers. A senior police officer, from outside the immediate area covered by a local journalist or a local newspaper, might go to court to seek an injunction to provide a ban, thus souring relationships that had been built up over many years between a local beat journalist and local beat police officers.
      If co-operation between the local media and the local police is broken down, the police may run the risk of losing one of their very important assets in the fight against crime. The Government should use the opportunity granted them under new clause 3 for further reflection to think about that, because some local police officers in my constituency do not think that it is necessarily a terribly good idea to put them in an adversarial relationship with their local media.
      I now come to my final point, which I do not believe has been made in the debate. In the age of the internet and the ever greater dissemination of information, successive Governments have found that many of their attempts to impose restrictions on the free flow of information are probably doomed to failure. That problem, encountered by the previous Government, is increasing.
      When I said that if accurate information was suppressed, inaccurate information would be circulated by other means, I also said that at the moment such information was probably spread by people talking to each another over the garden fence. In future years, increasingly, even local stories will be posted on the internet. One will never, realistically, be able to stop that.
      Between 10 and 20 years ago, the "Spycatcher" case showed that it was impossible to stop information being published outside the geographical jurisdiction of a court or a nation. If the Bill passes unamended by new clause 3, there is a risk that such information could be posted on the internet. Even if it is posted simply between Kendal and Ambleside in my constituency, it could go via a server in the United States, be bounced around Australia and then return to the United Kingdom. Legislation of the type that the Bill represents must take account of these things.
      My concern is that if one prevents the publication of accurate stories by the practitioners of professional, researched journalism, a bulge of inaccurate information will erupt elsewhere, which may in time come to be more damaging to children and young people than the accurate stories would have been. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity granted them in new clause 3 to think further about these matters.
      Mr. Boateng: This has been a good debate, in which we have given this subject the considered and careful reflection that it deserves. To that extent, it mirrors our debates on this and other subjects in Committee.
      The new clause provides for the Secretary of State to give notice of his intentions to make an order to activate the provisions of clause 44 in relation to child victims and witnesses; to publish his reasons for reaching his decision so to do; and to consult the media in whichever way he chooses. It then requires the Secretary of State to wait a further six months before making the order even if, in the interim, Parliament has debated the issue in both Houses and has agreed to the order being made.
      That is rather unusual. It is an odd and, in our view, unnecessary way of proceeding. I well understand the spirit in which the hon. Member for Ryedale

      1253
      (Mr. Greenway) moved the new clause, but we need to get real. It has been suggested by the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) in their careful and considered interventions—later I shall discuss in more detail the arguments made by the hon. Member for Gosport—that the Secretary of State for the Home Department might wake up one morning and, on a whim, bring these provisions into force. That, from two parliamentarians who, with the greatest respect, have been around a bit, demonstrates an ignorance—I believe, a wilful ignorance to enable them to make what they regarded as a good debating point—of the way in which the House works.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale knows that one cannot arrange a debate on a draft order in both Houses instantly. The order must be drafted, and then parliamentary time in each House must be arranged—all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, know the difficulties involved in that. Each House must positively resolve in favour of the draft order. Then, and only then, can the order be made. In the event of the procedure being brought into effect by affirmative order, there would be ample opportunity for discussion, for soundings to be taken and for representations to be made.
      6 pm
      We value enormously the representations that were made by the media in the course of discussion around the clauses. Representations were made through letters from individual Members responding to quite proper communication with their local editors, through national representative bodies, and by individual editors and the Guild of Editors. I can assure the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who brings to our debate a wealth of experience from the front line, that we have taken on board the concerns and the representations made by the provincial media, which play an enormously important part that I do not underestimate in the local dispensation of justice. They have an interest, which needs to be protected, and their views have been taken into account.
      I must not give in to the temptation offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale and others to accept the new clause if, by so doing, I would be fettering the discretion of future Ministers by binding them to any particular course of action. That is why I cannot respond as the hon. Members for Rye dale and for Colchester would have me do, by indicating what they described as our long-term intentions.
      As we made clear upstairs—I am glad to affirm it on the Floor of the House today—our intentions are to proceed by recognising the potential of self-regulation to address the issue, as has been demonstrated during the discussion of the clauses. The issue is a serious one—the welfare of children.
      I listened with close attention to the contributions of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). As a professional solicitor and a social worker working with children, they bring their experience to bear. I hear them both. I do not
      1254
      believe that there is any great gulf between them. It is a question of tactics, rather than objective. The objective that we all have in common is to protect children.
      After much deliberation and consultation, to which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and other child protection organisations made an important contribution, that objective led us to go down the road set out in clause 44. We went down that road because of a number of cases that raised concerns about the impact of publicity on children, whether as victims or witnesses—for example, the difficulty for a child of facing his classmates when he has been publicly identified in the local or national press as the son of a wife-beater or baby-killer; or, if he walks to school, the difficulty of having to pass hoardings that identify him publicly with such a tragedy; or the difficulty of being identified as belonging to a family of thieves or drug dealers, even if the investigation did not lead to any charges. That would certainly merit the editor of a local newspaper taking care to consider the consequences of a careless press report. The hon. Members for Colchester and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) will recognise that that is already the case in terms of the code of practice laid down by the PCC. We are not giving the Executive powers to ban the publication of particular material; we are making sure that the best standards of self-regulation are applied.
      As several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester, have said, the best standards are already being applied by the press and we are ensuring that they will be upheld and become more firmly entrenched in the general approach of the media—the broadcast media, national tabloid and broadsheet newspapers and local media—at all levels. We have to get the balance right, and I do not intend to make a distinction between the tabloids and local newspapers, which is the path down which he tempts me.
      It is important to make sure that standards are maintained and developed by all, and I cannot and will not fetter the discretion of future Ministers in that regard. We are debating a requirement under clause 64(3)(a) for the Secretary of State to lay a draft of the order before both Houses. The order cannot be made unless the draft is approved by a resolution of each House. Obviously, the Home Secretary of the day will take into account all the circumstances, not just a cause celebre, before determining so to do. I hope that that satisfies hon. Members. It is important to recognise that those recommendations, which were published in June 1998, came from "Speaking Up for Justice". They have been the subject of considerable consultation.
      I want to deal briefly with a number of points that were raised. The hon. Members for Gosport and for Bromsgrove asked why 18 was chosen. I understand their question. Our law—be it the Children Act 1989, the Bill or a range of measures concerning the age of consent, one of which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove—varies enormously for reasons of history, of vulnerability and of consistency within a particular area. It also refers to various ages, for example 16, 17 and 18. We chose 18 because it reflects the current limit in the youth court and the current limit in respect of court reporting restrictions. It would not have made sense to have chosen a lower age.

      1255
      There is a debate to be had about the wider issues and, when hon. Members consider this matter, they need always to have in mind our determination to ensure—
      It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 288.

      Division No. 231]

      [6.9 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Allan, Richard

      Key, Robert

      Amess, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Beggs, Roy

      Leigh, Edward

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bercow, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Loughton, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Luff, Peter

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Burns, Simon

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Cash, William

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Madel, Sir David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maples, John

      Collins, Tim

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Colvin, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cotter, Brian

      Norman, Archie

      Cran, James

      Ottaway, Richard

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Page, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Paterson, Owen

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Pickles, Eric

      Duncan, Alan

      Prior, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Robathan, Andrew

      Faber, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Flight, Howard

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Garnier, Edward

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gibb, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Spring, Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Guile, Donald

      Streeter, Gary

      Gray, James

      Stunell, Andrew

      Green, Damian

      Swayne, Desmond

      Greenway, John

      Syms, Robert

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Thompson, William

      Hancock, Mike

      Townend, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Tredinnick, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Trend, Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Horam, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Wardle, Charles

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Whittingdale, John

      1256

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wilkinson, John

      Willetts, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wilshire, David

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton—Brown

      Woodward, Shaun

      and

      Yeo, Tim

      Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Doran, Frank

      Alexander, Douglas

      Dowd, Jim

      Ashton, Joe

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Austin, John

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Barnes, Harry

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Barron, Kevin

      Efford, Clive

      Battle, John

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Beard, Nigel

      Ennis, Jeff

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Etherington, Bill

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Fisher, Mark

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Benton, Joe

      Flint, Caroline

      Best, Harold

      Flynn, Paul

      Betts, Clive

      Follett, Barbara

      Blackman, Liz

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Blears Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fyfe, Maria

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Galloway, George

      Boateng, Paul

      Gapes, Mike

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Browne, Desmond

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Goggins, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Burgon, Colin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Grogan, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hain, Peter

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Casale, Roger

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caton, Martin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clelland, David

      Hope, Phil

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coleman, Tony

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cousins, Jim

      Hurst, Alan

      Cranston, Ross

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jenkins, Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      1257

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Purchase, Ken

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rammell, Bill

      Khabra, Piara S

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lepper, David

      Roy, Frank

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Linton, Martin

      Sawford, Phil

      Livingstone, Ken

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Love, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McCabe, Steve

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Singh, Marsha

      Macdonald, Calum

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McFall, John

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Snape, Peter

      McNulty, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      MacShane, Denis

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Spellar, John

      McWatter, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McWilliam, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stott, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stringer, Graham

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Merron, Gillian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mitchell, Austin

      Todd, Mark

      Moffatt, Laura

      Touhig, Don

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Trickett, Jon

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Mudie, George

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mullin, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Vaz, Keith

      Norris, Dan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Wareing, Robert N

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Watts, David

      Olner, Bill

      White, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Pearson, Ian

      Wills, Michael

      Pickthall, Colin

      Winnick, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Pollard, Kerry

      1258

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wise, Audrey

      Worthington, Tony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wray, James

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      RESTRICTION ON REPORTS ABOUT PERSONS ACCUSED OR SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A SEXUAL OFFENCE
      '.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no matter relating to any person accused or suspected of committing a sexual offence shall be included in any publication if it is likely to lead to members of the public identifying him as a person involved in the offence unless and until he is convicted.
      (2) A court may direct that a person to whom subsection (1) applies may be identified if identification is necessary to secure the arrest of that person or is otherwise in the interests of justice.
      (3) A court making a direction pursuant to subsection (2) may give such ancillary directions as it thinks fit, having regard to the interests of justice and the interests of the accused or suspected person'.—[Mr. Greenway.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Previously, whenever the House debated a criminal justice Bill—certainly once in each Parliament—we debated the death penalty. Those days have gone, but I have an inkling that, in future, whenever we debate criminal justice matters, particularly Bills that refer to sex offences, we are likely to discuss the offence of rape, the structure of that offence and the way in which rape trials are conducted.
      Part of the reason for that is the fact that the Bill introduces changes that, as the Minister knows, are controversial. We had several constructive debates about them in Committee. In addition, the Home Office is undertaking a detailed research study into the offence of rape, entitled "Question of evidence?: investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990s".
      Earlier this week, some hon. Members who are in the Chamber attended a seminar that the Minister kindly arranged to discuss some of the review's objectives. I make a suggestion to the Minister: will he consider extending that review so that it considers the anonymity of defendants in sex offence cases, particularly those accused of rape? I make the suggestion for several reasons. The first is that the Bill proposes important changes that are clearly designed to protect victims. Clause 34, in particular, provides for an absolute ban on defendants in rape cases cross-examining rape victims. We appreciate why the Government propose making that provision.
      We also know from our debates in Committee, and from representations that all hon. Members have received, that the legal profession is divided on the provision. Some lawyers have said that the Government should go further, whereas others—including the Law Society, in stating the official view—have said that it is entirely the wrong thing to do. I dare say that in this debate we shall discover that divisions on the issue are not between, but within, political parties. Victims' interests are unquestionably being provided for in the Bill. I am happy about that,

      1259
      as the case for such provision has been well made. However, what are the consequences of that provision for the interests of defendants?
      Secondly, although the Home Office review will consider all of the issues relating to sex offences, it makes some basic assumptions. I want to deal with one specific assumption, which is that any application of the criminal law must be fair, necessary and proportionate. On the basis of that principle, I want to question whether there is a case for the House again to consider whether, in the interests of fairness and justice, there should be a restoration of defendants' anonymity—particularly in rape cases, but also in cases involving other sexual offences.
      The history of the matter is that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 amended the law on anonymity for complainants in rape cases so that anonymity commences when an allegation of rape is made to police and not—as provided in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976—when a defendant is formally accused. The 1988 Act also removed the anonymity of defendants in rape cases.
      Subsequently, in 1994 there was a review of the anonymity provision. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in answer to a written question, confirmed that he was satisfied
      "that the present law, which affords anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases, but offers no special protection for defendants, strikes a proper balance between the principle of open justice on the one hand and the need to ensure that victims of sexual offences are encouraged to come forward on the other."—[Official Report, 18 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 1029.]
      The history of the matter is important to our consideration of the provision for two reasons. First, one of the justifications for the changes in the Bill to the conduct of rape trials is that they will encourage more rape victims to come forward—rather than being discouraged from doing so because of the publicity given to one or two notorious cases in which victims were cross-examined, ruthlessly and without any protection from the court, by the alleged assailant.
      However, since my right hon. and learned Friend answered that written question, several incidents have caused concern and they prompted me to table the new clause to give the House an opportunity to consider whether we should restore the anonymity of defendants in the interests of fairness and natural justice and to restore the balance that the Bill is disturbing.
      6.30 pm
      In April 1995, Mark Jackson, a 21-year-old chef, hanged himself. He had been accused of rape by a former girl friend. The Crown court jury at Exeter acquitted him, but the story had reached his home town of Wigan 250 miles away, where the local newspaper headline screamed:
      "Jilted man, 21, raped ex-girlfriend".
      Mark was named and identified for all to see. He could not bear the shame and on the morning of Sunday 9 April his mother found him hanging from the staircase.
      Before Christmas 1996, a young man of 25, Dennis Proudfoot, gassed himself in his car. He had been charged with rape and was terrified of the effect of the publicity
      1260
      on him and his family. A few days after his death his parents received a letter from the girl admitting that he had not raped her.
      Those are just two of a catalogue of tragic cases that have occurred in the past few years—since my right hon. and learned Friend last reviewed the issue as Home Secretary—in which accusations that were malicious or that, even if they had substance, ended in acquittal resulted in a defendant's life being ruined. We have been right to explore giving greater protection to victims, but we should also take this opportunity to give consideration to the innocent defendants of rape allegations whose lives and whose families' lives have been ruined by the glare of publicity. One could take up more time with other cases, but I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members want to speak and we are time limited.
      This is not just about men accused of rape seeking some justice through anonymity unless or until they are convicted. Sadly, there are also cases involving women. I understand that on 7 February 1997 the General Medical Council found a female doctor not guilty of indecently assaulting a woman patient. She was subjected to the glare of publicity and her career and personal life have never recovered. I accept that the procedures of the GMC are different from those of the courts, but the principles are the same. Therefore, I felt it right to bring the issue before the House again.
      I have one further important point for the Minister. Clearly, this is an exploratory debate, and we do not intend to press the matter to a vote. However, I want the Minister to consider extending the review of how rape and sex offences are investigated and prosecuted, and I would like the anonymity issue to be brought within the purview of the review.
      I wish to refer to the incident that prompted me to propose this as a matter for discussion. We have just discussed the reporting of criminal incidents involving young persons under 18 and I have referred to the case of Adam Dent, a 15-year-old who was accused of rape and identified in the press, but not subsequently charged. That case is one of the reasons why the Opposition have agreed to accept the Government's proposal for further curbs on press reporting of criminal incidents to protect the identity of the defendant.
      If it is right to give protection and anonymity to a teenager falsely or maliciously accused of rape—as is proposed in clause 44—what is the case for restricting that prohibition only to young men under 18? An accused person aged 17 would be protected, but someone aged 18 would not. Is that a fair, just, balanced or logical conclusion? I am not sure that it is, as is made clear by the two or three cases that I cited which involved young men—maybe a little older than Adam Dent—in similar circumstances.
      I wish to drawn the House's attention to the potential scale of the difficulty. In the preamble to the Home Office research study paper, there is an analysis of the attrition process in rape complaints. Although there has been a marked reduction in the number of rape complaints where the cases were subsequently not recorded as crimes, some 25 per cent. of rape allegations are still not recorded as crimes. The most common reason for that is that the complaint was believed to be false or malicious. In over one third of such cases, the complainant withdrew the allegation.

      1261
      It is perfectly feasible that, in each of those cases, the identity of the persons accused would have been revealed to the press. There could have been some lurid press coverage, with all the consequences of that for that person and his family. We cannot conclude that this is just a tiny problem. It is a significant difficulty and one to which the House—and the Minister—should give serious consideration.
      Mr. Beith: We support the aim of the new clause. On Second Reading I asked the Government to consider the issue of anonymity for those accused of sexual offences. Complainants rightly have anonymity. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, it encourages the continuance of a case in an area where there is considerable fall-off, for the understandable reason that it is an extremely harrowing business to add to the awful experience of rape all the trials and tribulations that attend on pursuing a court case.
      The case for anonymity of the accused is strong. There are two main reasons for granting it. First, the anonymity of the victim can be undermined when the defendant is known. It is also extremely common in rape cases for it to be possible to deduce who the victim is from other extraneous circumstances, such as the location. Lack of anonymity for the defendant undermines our ability to protect the complainant.
      Secondly, the social stigma of a rape accusation is very great and may long survive an acquittal. Reputations can be ruined and marriages destroyed simply by allegations. In cases where the allegation is false and malicious, the accuser has the protection of anonymity, so it is reasonable that in those circumstances, which are different from those in other cases, the defendant should have the same right. Of course, the anonymity would disappear on conviction.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale spoke of people who were so traumatised by the allegation that they took their own life, even though it subsequently emerged that no rape had occurred. It is clear that people in such cases are under extreme pressure.
      When the Crime and Disorder Bill was in the Lords, my noble Friend Lord Goodhart tabled an amendment to restore the anonymity of defendants in rape cases, which was part of our law for a considerable time. The then Solicitor-General, Lord Falconer, accepted that there was high social stigma and that other problems existed but did not in the end accept the argument. He relied on the fact that openness is a fundamental principle in our justice system and said that as defendants are generally named, there was no reason why those in rape cases should receive special protection. We do not believe that his arguments counter the strong arguments that I have set out.
      I hope that the Government will re-examine the issue carefully. There are good reasons for surrounding rape cases with special provisions, because if we did not it would be impossible for many guilty people to be brought to justice, but we are left with a problem about those who are falsely or maliciously accused. Given all the other protections that exist, it would be appropriate to restore the anonymity that our law once provided for defendants in such cases.
      Mr. Boateng: The law as it stands offers anonymity for complainants in sexual offences, but it offers no specific
      1262
      protection for adult defendants. Anonymity for defendants in rape cases was originally introduced in 1976—by a Labour Government, as it happens—and was repealed in 1988—by a Conservative Government, as it happens—following a recommendation by the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
      However, this is not a matter for party politics. It is a very difficult and complex issue that goes to the heart of the wider public interest in court proceedings. In an earlier debate, reference was made to the literal meaning of the term "public interest", and to the public interest in having freedom of information about what goes on in court.
      6.45 pm
      The Criminal Law Revision Committee took the view that people accused of rape should not be singled out for special protection while other defendants could be identified. The Government in 1988 agreed. They were not convinced that rape defendants should be treated differently from defendants against whom a different but equally serious offence is alleged. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 therefore repealed the relevant measure.
      I listened with interest to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Greenway). They said that rape carries a special stigma, but people charged with an offence of dishonesty at work or in connection with their business, for example, and who are subsequently acquitted would say that that charge carried both a stigma and a consequence that could threaten their livelihood.
      Balancing stigma and post-acquittal consequences involves arguments that are by no means clear-cut. Should people charged with an offence of dishonesty in connection with their business also have protection? The consequences could be just as severe, and the stigma just as great. If they are not to have such protection, why not? Those who propose a return to the law as it was before 1988 must have a convincing response to that dilemma. I am not entirely certain that that has been demonstrated by those who have argued this evening that the 1988 repeal should at least be explored.
      Mr. Beith: I remind the Minister that rape differs from other offences in that, in rape cases, anonymity is given to the complainant, which increases the possibility of a false and malicious allegation. The innocent defendant in such a case will ask how it can be right that the person making the allegation can have anonymity, whereas the defendant cannot. In that sense, rape is different from other offences.
      Also, I meant to point out that the new clause would allow the court to break anonymity where the interests of justice required it.
      Mr. Boateng: I shall come in due course to the powers that the court, by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction, already has in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman maintains that one anonymity should be balanced with another, but the contrary argument has been aired in debates throughout the afternoon, and it is that the public have a right, and an interest, in knowing what goes on in court. That argument must be addressed in determining where the balance of public interest lies.

      1263
      We are satisfied that the present law strikes a proper balance between the principle of open justice, in which the public has the wider interest, and the very important need to ensure that victims of sexual offences are encouraged to report such crimes. We are not convinced that there is a special case for infringing the principle of open justice regarding defendants in sexual offences cases.
      I have nothing but sympathy for the relatives of those in the cases offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale who were driven to suicide by their sense of shame and stigma at the allegations to which they were subject. There is genuine concern that defendants will be deeply distressed by being publicly named in connection with a sexual offence. Even if subsequently found not guilty, people may suffer great distress because of publicity given to their case.
      Sexual offences cases are particularly heinous, and proceedings inevitably attract much public interest. However, the same can be said of other serious crimes, such as murder, in which defendants may be acquitted. Allegations of indecent assault or gross indecency can carry enormous stigma. Do those who make the case for change suggest that defendants accused of those offences ought to be protected by the cloak of anonymity?
      Though the suggestion is well intentioned, to offer anonymity to defendants in sex cases would encourage others facing serious charges to argue—with some legitimacy—that they face embarrassment and distress and should be protected from press and public attention. We must ensure equality of treatment among defendants.
      New clause 2 refers to a person neither accused nor suspected of having committed an offence. After acquittal, a person is neither accused nor suspected, and the new clause would not achieve what the hon. Member for Ryedale wants. We are not satisfied that the reform is justified. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the sex offences review might deal with the point, but it falls outside the review's terms of reference, which are to consider the law, not procedural or evidential issues.
      The Contempt of Court Act 1981 goes some way to addressing the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. If there is a need to avoid publicity, the court has the power to act to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to proceedings. The court may order postponement of publication of any report of proceedings for whatever period it considers necessary. In addition, where a court decides to withhold a name from the public during a trial, it has the power to prohibit publication entirely.
      The courts, mindful of the need to preserve the principle of open justice, have held that that power should not be used merely for the comfort or feelings of the defendant or to enable defendants to avoid unwanted publicity. The powers should be used only in limited circumstances, such as protecting the identities of the young, or in cases in which witnesses might later be exposed to violence or blackmail, or where national security might be prejudiced. The Government agree with that approach.
      We have been asked why we should protect only victims. Anonymity for complainants in sex offence cases is designed not only to protect them from hurtful publicity
      1264
      for their sake alone, but to encourage other victims of sexual assault to report the offence and to co-operate with the prosecution. Those arguments do not apply to the accused. Throughout our deliberations in Committee, it was pointed out—not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes)—that the current rate of attrition is such that nothing must be done to weaken in any way the capacity and confidence of a complainant to come forward and make her allegation; it is normally "her", but it could equally be "him" in relevant cases. The point was also made by other hon. Friends outside the Committee and in the considerable and weighty representations that I received. The point has been made time and again. The House must confront what the attrition rate in rape cases tells us; the proportion of rape cases recorded by the police and resulting in a conviction fell from 24 per cent. in 1985 to 9 per cent. in 1997. That is a matter of the gravest concern.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: Is not the lack of balance in the anonymity provisions part of the problem? Since anonymity for the defendant was scrapped, the suggestion has been lurking in the courtroom, in almost every rape case, that a false allegation may have been made under the cloak of anonymity. A man's life may be ruined because of that anonymity. If both parties have anonymity, that suggestion cannot lurk in the background at court. I suggest that that would make a difference.
      Mr. Boateng: We hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I want to make it crystal clear why it is so important that the special position of the complainant should be recognised in law. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, if the complainant is in the same position as the defendant, that does not hold up the complainant's special position as deserving the special measure that the complainant should not be subjected to publicity.
      Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Boateng: I am not able to give way; the House wants to proceed. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
      I have listened carefully to the arguments, but, for the reason that I have just given, we are not able to accept the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale will not press it to a vote.
      Mr. Greenway: The Minister's response was predictable. In fairness to him, I do not mean that as a criticism. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, whenever the matter has been raised in recent years, Ministers—in Labour or Conservative Governments—have given the same response. However, there is more to the matter than the Minister accepts.
      The Minister asks whether the stigma and consequence of an unfounded rape allegation is different from that of any other crime. For two reasons, there is a significant difference. The first reason is that, in a case of rape or serious sexual offence, the victim has complete anonymity. In the case of virtually all other serious crimes, such anonymity does not exist.

      1265
      If, for example, someone alleges that another person has stolen or embezzled money or property, and if the person concerned is acquitted, a stigma will be attached to the person who made the allegation, because—presumably—that person will have been found not to have told the complete truth. That in itself deters people from making false allegations of criminal offences: those who would make such allegations know that, if the case ends in an acquittal, it is they who will be made to look foolish and dishonest.
      7 pm
      Mr. Heald: It is noticeable that, since the scrapping of the anonymity of the defendant, the number of rape cases that have been successfully pursued and have resulted in conviction has fallen dramatically. Might not one reason for that be that the point is not lost on the jury that the person making the complaint is doing so anonymously, and is risking nothing? I am all in favour of that—I think that there should be an anonymity for the victim—but there is an unfairness, in that the defendant, who is not guilty at the time of the trial, has had his reputation ruined for life and, at the end of the day, it may turn out that the allegation is false. That unfairness is in the background of juries' thinking, and it is causing many of the problems.
      Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all accept that anonymity for the victim is an important prerequisite: it encourages women to report rapes or other sexual or violent offences, and I have no doubt that that is the correct approach. However, anonymity has a number of unfortunate consequences. For instance, as my hon. Friend says, someone who intends to make a malicious complaint has nothing to lose. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made that point too.
      Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the woman's name may not be printed in the press, she has to stand up in open court, facing the person whom she has accused, in front of the jury, the judge and court officials, and make her case?
      Mr. Greenway: All that is true, and is taken as read; but it does not explain another fact to which I was about to refer. The research paper that I mentioned earlier gives reasons other than those given by the Minister for the fact that the attrition rate is so high, and the fact that so few rape allegations result in convictions. One reason is that allegations are subsequently withdrawn—a factor that is not a feature of other criminal offences.
      The Minister asked us, quite openly, to give a reason for the fact that rape and other sexual offences should be different. I think that we have made our case. The stigma, and the consequences, are different in the case of rape—not just because of the anonymity involved, but because it appears for some reason that an acquittal, or the withdrawal of an allegation, does not result in anything like the prominence in the press that was given to the original allegation. There is always the lingering suspicion that the acquittal was not justified, or that there was some truth in the allegation but not enough evidence to sustain the prosecution.
      Mr. Heald: No smoke without fire.
      Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend states the reality that the House must face.
      Mr. Heald: I am sorry to exploit my hon. Friend's good will, but I have become interested in the debate. Does he agree that the unbalanced position on anonymity has two bad effects? First, it is bad for the defendant if he is acquitted and people say that there is no smoke without fire. Secondly, it undermines the case of women who have been wronged and treated appallingly, because in court, they are undermined by the ever-present suggestion that they are making their accusation with the benefit of anonymity, while the man's reputation is on the line. That undermines cases that should be pressed home successfully to a conviction.
      Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend tempts me with a road down which I do not wish to go, because I do not want to dispel the spirit that existed within the Committee and encompassed some of the Government Members. However, he makes his own point extremely well.
      We shall not have an opportunity to discuss this important issue again for a while, but time is pressing and in an effort to be brief, I missed out a page of my notes. One of the important points on that page is the one made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—that in rape cases, the lack of anonymity for the accused, or the defendant, or the alleged perpetrator leads increasingly to the anonymity of the victim being breached and her identity being disclosed.
      The fundamental reason for that development is clear in the research: it is that the number of stranger rape cases as a proportion of all rape allegations is falling, but that the number of so-called acquaintance, intimate or date rape cases has increased substantially. Therefore, there is a far greater prospect that, by publishing the identity of the alleged perpetrator, the identity of the victim will be disclosed. It seems logical to conclude that, if the priority is to give protection and anonymity to a victim, any matter that undermines that anonymity should be a matter of concern for the House, and that some adjustment to the law is justified.
      When he referred to the Home Office review of sex offences, the Minister said that the anonymity issue was outwith the scope of that review. That surprises me, because the document given to us at the seminar that the Minister kindly and helpfully arranged sets out the terms of reference for the review. They are:
      "To review the sex offences in the common and statute law of England and Wales, and make recommendations that will: provide coherent and clear sex offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation".
      I accept that the anonymity issue is not covered by that, or by the second requirement—that the recommendations should
      "enable abusers to be appropriately punished".
      However, I suggest that the anonymity issue is covered by the third strand, which is that the recommendations should
      "be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the ECHR and the Human Rights Act."
      Even setting aside those cases in which a trial results in acquittal, and concentrating only on those cases in which the allegation is subsequently withdrawn and the

      1267
      woman admits that she was not telling the truth, I put it to the Minister that it is not fair and not non-discriminatory to give anonymity to rape and sex offence victims, but not to people who are, in many cases, maliciously and falsely accused. There is a human rights dimension to the question of anonymity for those who are falsely accused of rape and sexual offences.
      It will be clear that I do not seek to press this matter further. Early Thursday evening, when the House is about to adjourn for the week, may be an unfortunate time to have this debate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) laughs, but although I do not think that we shall have a long Third Reading debate, there was a statement that lasted an hour, and the Government have known for days that it would be made today.
      The House ought to return to this issue. The other place will do so. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for his support, and I ask the Minister to think again about including the issue in the important review of rape that his Department is currently undertaking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 17

      WITNESSES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE ON GROUNDS OF FEAR OR DISTRESS ABOUT TESTIFYING
      Mr. Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 13, line 24, leave out 'section' and insert 'subsection'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 5.
      Mr. Boateng: The amendments are the direct result of representations made to the Government by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for South Swindon (Ms Drown), for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), among others. They are designed to ensure that all sexual offence complainants will be eligible for help unless they say that they do not want to be eligible. Every sexual offence is likely to be distressing and frightening. It represents an assault of the most intimate kind and, if the complainant and defendant know one another, a betrayal of trust. In Committee, I agreed to consider whether complainants in sexual offence cases should have a greater degree of certainty that they will be deemed eligible for assistance. After consideration, I agree that the particular nature of sexual offence cases and the problem of attrition in those cases demand that we give sexual offence complainants greater certainty. They should have the certainty that they cannot be judged ineligible for help unless they do not want help. The debate in Committee was enormously significant. It was enhanced by the representations made by the hon. Members whom I have mentioned, not forgetting the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who brought the point home with particular force and has used her
      1268
      considerable influence to bring about this outcome. I hope that in the light of that, hon. Members on both sides of the House will give the amendments a fair wind.
      Ms Julia Drown: The amendment gives the complainant the strongest possible presumption that special measures should be adopted unless the witness does not want them. As one of those who have argued for the strengthening of the clause, I welcome the amendment. The amendment allows the strongest possible assumption, but not an absolute automatic right to special measures because the judge could decide that none of the special measures would help the witness. The intention of the clause is that it would be incredibly unusual for someone not to be given at least a screen, but it still allows for no special measures to be applied. A justification for that is the European convention on human rights, which we have now incorporated into British law. Article 6 of that convention says that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
      7.15 pm
      I am not aware of any authority or previous ruling that has laid down that screens—which we may take to be a minimum protection—breach article 6 by acting as an impediment to effective cross-examination. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be fully aware, the European convention on human rights allows for a margin of appreciation in the interpretation of its provisions by signatory states. Some leading lawyers believe that that margin would allow the Home Secretary to permit screens in court under article 6. Has counsel's opinion been obtained on that issue? If so, what was the advice?
      Given that the minimum of a screen as a special measure would not restrict a fair trial of the defendant, I would want the Government to go further even than they have by tabling amendment No. 5. I should like them to say that a screen would be the minimum that they would expect for a witness in a rape trial.
      Guidance would need to be given to judges, to say that the minimum of a screen does not prevent other measures—such as clearing the court—from being offered, but that the screen should be regarded as a minimum protection and that, if the witness requests further protections, the court must give the matter serious thought.
      The huge advantage of setting the automatic right to at least a screen would be that we could then offer potential witnesses some certainty. They could be told from day 1, when they walk into the police station to report the crime, that if the case went to court, they would not have to face the accused if they did not want to. An automatic right for complainants to be afforded such protection would be better for defendants, too. If in all cases the judge has the ultimate say over whether special measures are appropriate, so that particular measures are allowed only in specific cases, it may be difficult to prevent juries from forming the belief that there is something especially sinister about the defendant in a case where a special measure has been allowed. If there is an automatic right to special measures, juries can be advised that the use of the special measures has nothing to do with any special features of the case or of the defendant.
      Undoubtedly, the law needs to give better protection to witnesses. Some victims of rape say that they cannot face even the prospect that they might have to face their

      1269
      attacker again in court, and that they would prefer to let the attacker go free than to risk going through that experience. Amendment No. 5 would obviously help those victims.
      Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that, if amendment No. 5 is passed and if sufficiently strong guidance is given to judges, he will be able to give men and women rape victims the assurance that they need to enable them to report crimes of rape and face going into the witness box?
      I should like further clarification. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that complainants would not usually attend pre-trial hearings, but that in rare situations, that could happen. I then asked how complainants would be protected at pre-trial hearings in the unlikely, but possible, event that both they and the defendant turned up in the same room. I was very pleased to hear in Committee that a judge would have the power to prevent a witness from having to be in the same room as the defendant in such situations. However, can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will give judges sufficiently strong guidance to ensure that they exercise that power when the witness wishes her or him to do so?
      Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the protections that, rightly, he has included in clause 41 to restrict the use of sexual history evidence in trials can also be extended, via the guidance or via further legislation, to apply to pre-trial hearings, too, so that victims know with certainty that they will have all the protections that the Government envisage through all parts of the justice system? One reason why special measures are so necessary is that, sometimes in rape cases and all too often in the past, sexual history evidence has been brought into rape trials. It could have been thought that fewer victims would need special measures if the Bill had outlawed all inappropriate sexual history evidence.
      However, many of us now accept that we cannot do everything that we had hoped for in the Bill in terms of limiting sexual history evidence, which makes screens and the strong presumption in favour of screens as proposed in amendment No. 5 even more crucial. The barrier to our making as much progress on the matter now as would be desirable is that the rules on the admissibility of evidence must be framed in the light of the definition of rape contained in the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Understandably, we cannot have two inconsistent laws.
      The strong presumption in favour of screens, as proposed in the amendment, will encourage rape victims to come forward. I welcome the moves to limit sexual history evidence, but they cannot give complainants the complete assurance that they will not subjected in court to humiliating or intimidating questions about their sexual history. Many women have described the experience of a trial in which they have had to go through their sexual history in intimate detail as a humiliation which made them feel as though they had been raped again.
      We must recognise that however much witnesses are protected from unreasonable questioning about their sexual history, it is inevitable that, in many rape cases, witnesses will have to give intimate and detailed sexual evidence. That is bound to be the case when the defence is that intercourse did not take place. We should not forget, therefore, that the experience is bound to be traumatic and intrusive for the complainant. We are discussing ways in which that trauma and intrusion can be reduced, but it
      1270
      cannot be removed entirely. I have discussed with my hon. Friends the many police officers, lawyers and women's refuge workers who told us that if they had been raped, they would not take their case to court. Their testimony is eloquent.
      The strong presumption in favour of special measures is relevant. Although the Bill goes some way towards reducing the admissibility of sexual history evidence, particularly in cases where the defence is arguing that the complainant consented, the Bill cannot rule out inappropriate sexual history in all rape trials. That cannot be done because the definition of rape currently on the statute book allows as a defence the argument that the defendant had an honest belief in consent, even if he now admits that the victim did not consent, or worse—that the defendant had an honest, but unreasonable belief in consent. It is incredible that such a defence should be available. We must try to make sensible laws about what constitutes reasonable evidence and appropriate special measures in a rape trial. On discovering the possible defence of an honest, but unreasonable belief that the victim consented, I felt rather like Alice stepping through the looking-glass and moving into a world of make-believe.
      However, even for this defence, through the Bill, we have introduced restrictions on sexual history evidence. Those restrictions are that refusing to give such evidence could lead the jury to an unsafe conclusion, that the main purpose of the evidence must not be to undermine the victim's credibility, and that the evidence must relate to specific instances of sexual behaviour of the complainant. That is as far as we can go while such a ridiculous defence is available. That makes this amendment essential.
      I should be interested to hear whether my hon. Friend the Minister believes that the Bill introduces further restrictions, in addition to those that I outlined. We wanted to reduce the horrific cases in which inappropriate sexual history is brought out in court and widely reported, which deters other victims from reporting rapes. In Committee, we discussed a case in which it was pointed out in court that in the past, the witness had had sex with an Asiatic, and that the accused happened to be an Asiatic, and another case in which the witness was reminded that she had had sex with a man older than herself who was of the same age as the defendant. It is understandable that complainants would want the court to be cleared if such evidence were presented.
      Although such evidence will now be ruled irrelevant, it could be relevant if it related to specific instances of sexual behaviour and the defendant claimed an unreasonable, but honest belief that the complainant had consented. The defendant could argue that he believed stupidly, but honestly that because the complainant had had consensual sex with a similar person, she consented to sex with the defendant on the occasion in question. The Minister said in Committee that offensive and irrelevant questions should not be allowed in our courts, but under the Bill, it will still be possible to present similar evidence. That further emphasises the need for the amendment. The Bill is intended to overrule the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Viola in 1982, which argued that a complainant's promiscuity was relevant to consent—a ridiculous judgment. The overruling would apply to consent, but not to belief in consent, as a defence. Hon. Members will agree that victims in such situations have a strong right to special measures.

      1271
      I should be delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill precludes specific instances of sexual history being brought out to justify cases such as the three to which I have referred, in which case victims might not have to ask for all the particular special measures that we are making available through the clause. If so, surely we are changing the law of evidence in anticipation of how we want the law to change. That is precisely what my hon. Friend told us in Committee that we cannot do. As long as the defence of unreasonable, but honest belief in consent remains, unreasonable evidence may be admitted, which makes special measures all the more important.
      Mr. Llwyd: A defence of that nature—the subjective test—exists in relation to many other offences. It is nothing new, it is not peculiar to this offence and it does not seem to create any injustice in any other context.
      Ms Drown: We are particularly concerned about the attrition rate in rape cases and the fact that so many vulnerable people will not come forward because of the sort of evidence that has been brought forward in the past.
      I acknowledge that the Government are tackling the larger problem by reviewing the definition of rape. That is desperately needed, because we will not be able to give women victims confidence that the law will always protect them until unreasonable belief in consent is removed as a defence from the law of the land. For that reason, special measures are even more necessary, although in a sense we are putting the cart before the horse by considering special measures and evidence first rather than the offences.
      The problem with unreasonable belief in consent is not the only reason why we need those special measures. Even though there are special protections in clause 41, there is still a need for special measures, such as clearing the court or being able to give evidence from behind a screen. Under subsection (3)(b), a person might have to talk about
      "sexual behaviour…at or about the same time as the event",
      which makes special measures necessary. We need to consider whether that is the best way of protecting witnesses. It has been suggested that we should use special measures rather than look in more detail at sexual history, but we should look in more detail at the root of the issues relating to sexual history and consider whether we are doing all we can to make sure that guilty people are brought to trial. For example, clause 41(3)(b) concerns anything that happened around the time of the event and whether such events are relevant to consent, which is what the Government would argue. All those things could be brought in under rebuttal, which few people have mentioned, or under a restriction that is used in many other countries: sexual behaviour evidence should be limited to that between the defendant and the complainant.
      In Committee, the Minister gave the example that it would be relevant to know that a couple had been seen kissing in a doorway or on a park bench—or, to take another example, that they had had consensual sex—an hour before the alleged incident took place. However, we were not given an example of behaviour with anyone other than the complainant which would be relevant to
      1272
      consent, so should not the Government be considering that as at least an added restriction to subsection (3)(b)? Can they justify subsection (3)(c)(ii), under which any previous, strikingly similar sexual history is relevant to consent?
      The Government have rightly and strongly said that, in general, people do not decide to consent to sex with anyone on any occasion. People give consent on separate occasions to a certain person and the law should uphold that. If such examples are still to be brought in, we can see the case for the amendment: victims need those special measures. Subsection (3)(c)(ii) has been justified by some peculiar examples. Baroness Mallalieu has referred to a sexual history involving a "Romeo and Juliet" balcony scene followed by sex. In a trial, that would be considered to be relevant to consent if the rape was alleged to have occurred in similar circumstances. If that is to be allowed, an amendment to clause 17 such as this is definitely necessary.
      7.30 pm
      We need further scrutiny of these issues. The Government have gone a long way towards limiting sexual history evidence and providing better protection for rape victims. Nevertheless, until we review current sexual offences, we shall not be able to give proper protection to women and men victims of rape. The Government need to ensure that the sexual offences review concludes as soon as possible, and to get rid of the honest, but unreasonable belief in consent defence. Then we need to return to these clauses, and ensure that all irrelevant sexual history is excluded from trial and that victims can be guaranteed special measures protections that they request.
      Mr. Bob Russell: The amendments are to be welcomed. If I may, I shall draw the Minister's attention to the fifth sitting of the Committee when I asked:
      "Would it not be to the advantage of all concerned if, when the victim requested special measures, they were granted? Otherwise, the victim might well have to go through the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 June 1999, c.121.]
      In reply the Minister said "No" and explained that answer. Do I now understand that his answer to my request of last month is now yes?
      Lorna Fitzsimons: I wish to put on record how important this amendment is and how welcome the Government's new approach has been, in particular that of the Minister and his ministerial team. He has been open to people like myself with no legal background whatever and has helped us understand the problems in other bits of the law that we, as interested parties, face—specifically in the application of special measures. We acknowledge that the Government recognise the special needs of the most vulnerable people, to which special measures he is attending, and realise that we cannot do everything in this Bill.
      The achievement of the women on the Committee needs to be put on record. They and the ministerial team have been working round the problems of our awful legal system where witnesses do not count because what matters is what can be proved in a court of law. Ordinary people cannot understand it. We have pushed back the boundaries.

      1273
      We need to look at the review of sexual offences and other bits of the law, such as the definition of belief. I welcome the Government's approach and believe that it will achieve a lot for the most vulnerable whose voice is not heard at present.
      Mr. Boateng: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) for those kind remarks and echo them in relation to the Bill team who have been responsible for giving us the back-up that they have on these amendments and responding to the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee during the debate.
      It has been important, and it has guided our work as a Bill Committee, to determine that the courts should be required to put at the heart of their consideration of the matters before them the needs and views of individual witnesses, taken on board and understood in detail, in terms of the court determining the appropriate response to make sure that witnesses can give of their best evidence. This is all about ensuring that witnesses give of their best evidence because it is when witnesses have been able to present that best evidence to the court and the jury have had an opportunity to understand and appreciate it that the interests of justice are most likely to be served. The interests of justice are best served by our addressing the causes of attrition in a way that is based on research and developing best practice, and ensuring both through primary legislation and guidance to the court how best to give complainants the confidence and reassurance that they so desperately need to go forward with these prosecutions. Hence it is important to ensure that a menu of measures is available to the courts, so that they can consider which one will best meet a particular witness's needs. We intend to proceed down that route, rather than impose an artificial norm to be followed unless a witness protests.
      Some rape complainants may find a screen helpful. In other cases, the court may decide that the witness should be kept out of the court altogether so as to be able to give of their best evidence, and that a video or live link would be better. In those cases, rather than a screen, the first thing the court should consider is a video or live link. Having taken into account the needs of the witness in some detail in the context of what is occurring in the court, the judge should be able to put those special measures in place.
      The amendments ensure that sex offence complainants have confidence that they will get the understanding of the court to which they are entitled, and we must back that up with guidance. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) that guidance will be forthcoming: it will be clear and focused on the needs of witnesses to enable them to give of their best evidence.
      The Government have heard the representations of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and those of my hon. Friends in Committee, which is why we have come to this conclusion. We believe that it is important for the courts to retain proper control of how evidence is given at trial, and to strike a balance between the needs of the witnesses and the interests of a fair trial. That is necessary to accord with our European Court of Human Rights obligations. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, we are quite satisfied that the measures that we are introducing are entirely in
      1274
      accordance with our ECHR obligations. The court will be able to consider the views of all parties, including the party calling the witness, who may take a different view from that of the witness. Having borne in mind the totality of all the circumstances, it will be able to come to a proper conclusion.
      In her wide-ranging speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon raised the wider issues around consent and belief in consent. I hear what she says, and note her vigorous critique of the law of rape as it now stands. There will be varying views in the House about how best to constitute the offence of rape. I am glad to say that the Government are determined to take an inclusive approach by reaching out and giving everyone an opportunity to make representations, hence the importance of the sex offences review. I am delighted that so many hon. Members availed themselves of the opportunity that I gave them earlier this week to attend that seminar, and I am grateful to them for doing so. There will need to be more debate and discussion.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 14, line 2, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 5 and insert
      '(or to that offence and any other offences), the witness is eligible for assistance in relation to those proceedings by virtue of this subsection unless the witness has informed the court of the witness' wish not to be so eligible by virtue of this subsection.'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
      It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 21

      SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHILD WITNESSES
      Amendment made: No. 6, in page 17, line 35, leave out `the witness' and insert—

      '(a) any cross-examination of the witness otherwise than by the accused in person, and

      (b) any subsequent re-examination.'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

    Clause 22
      EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21 TO CERTAIN WITNESSES OVER 17
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 18, line 27, leave out 'qualifying'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
    Clause 30
      AIDS TO COMMUNICATION
      Amendment made: No. 8, in page 24, line 5, after `disorder' insert 'or other impairment'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
    Clause 66

      CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 48, line 12, at end insert—
      '(3) Until the day appointed under section 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for the commencement of Parts II and III of that Act this section shall have effect with the substitution for subsection (1) of the following—

      1275
      "(1) An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of any of the relevant provisions of this Act—

      (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but

      (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

    Schedule 4

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 74, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'substitute' in line 30 and insert—
      '22.—(1) Section 51 (intimidation etc. of witnesses, jurors and others) is amended as follows.
      (2) For subsections (1) to (3) (offences of intimidating, and of doing or threatening harm to, witnesses etc.)'.
      No. 11, in page 75, line 9, at end insert—
      '(3) In subsection (8) (presumption in proceedings for offence under subsection (2))—
      (a) for "he did or threatened to do an act falling within paragraph (a) within the relevant period" substitute "within the relevant period—

      (a) he did an act which harmed, and was intended to harm, another person, or

      (b) intending to cause another person fear of harm, he threatened to do an act which would harm that other person,

      and that he did the act, or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act,"; and
      (b) after "to have done the act" insert "or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.40 pm
      Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill reflects our belief that the function of the criminal justice system goes far wider than reaching the right decision about a defendant's guilt or innocence and meteing out punishments to the guilty. Every part of that system has a role to play in reducing crime and the fear of crime. At the same time, the way in which the system deals with defendants, victims, witnesses and the wider community can help to foster a sense of a tolerant and just society, where rights and responsibilities are properly balanced.
      The purpose of a trial is to reach a just conclusion on the defendant's guilt or innocence. In our jurisdiction, we use an adversarial system to achieve that aim. The Bill does not change that, but we must never forget that that system is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We should always keep open the way in which the forensic part of the system operates, aiming to improve its efficiency and effectiveness and to ensure, so far as humanly possible, not only that no innocent person is convicted, but that the guilty never go free and—it has been a defect in the system in the current century and in a good part of the previous one—that the individual victim and the community, which is always an indirect victim of crime, are given proper dignity and centrality at the heart of the criminal justice system.
      1276
      Part I further takes forward our pledges to reduce youth offending. As we said in greater detail at the beginning of today's proceedings, we do not believe that the courtroom and the drama that it creates, where the young defendant is often a spectator, is conducive to a full investigation of a young person's offending—once guilt has been admitted or, indeed, determined—or to a full investigation of the crime's underlying causes, which must involve the young person and must bring in his or her parents, the victims and the wider community.
      Therefore, as we have discussed at some length, the Bill separates the determination of guilt and the sentencing process in that investigation. Sentencing will be conducted by way of referral to a youth offender panel, where we will aim—the experience of Scotland has well illustrated what can happen—to achieve the investigation of the young person's offending and its underlying causes without the direct involvement of lawyers.
      That is not to besmirch the reputation of a fine profession, of which the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and many other hon. Members, including me, are proud to be members. Indeed, on some occasions, I think that membership of the legal profession might be a prior qualification for becoming an hon. Member.
      Mr. Beith: There are too many lawyers.
      Mr. Straw: There are never too many. I am glad to underline my affection for my profession. That said, there are jobs for which lawyers are well qualified, which are to do with the law and forensic examination of guilt or innocence, and jobs for which they are not particularly qualified and for which their qualifications may not be appropriate. They arise at the point where guilt has been determined and the issue is how to get the young offender to deal with his offending behaviour. It is interesting that, in Scotland, at that point, lawyers are not involved in Scotland's youth offender panels.
      Part II of the Bill recognises the fact, which we sometimes forget, that the trial process involves more people than the defendant, and that trials could not proceed without witnesses, not least witnesses for the prosecution. However, for some witnesses the circumstances of the case, their own situation or the nature of their evidence makes the experience of giving evidence so difficult for them that their ability to provide that evidence, or their co-operation with a case, is affected. The intimidation of witnesses is a mounting problem in our society, not only in large and very serious cases, but in cases that the criminal calendar may regard as smaller cases involving relatively minor offences—which, nevertheless, are profoundly important to those who have been affected by them.
      The Bill therefore provides practical measures to help such witnesses to come forward and give evidence at trial. Moreover, it implements our manifesto pledges to provide greater protection to victims in rape and sexual offence trials, and to all witnesses, whatever the nature of the trial, who are subject to intimidation. The Bill provides ways of protecting witnesses from some of the more distressing aspects of the trial process, while preserving defendants' rights.

      1277
      There has been much discussion about the balance of the provisions, particularly on protections in the reporting of cases involving juvenile defendants to age 18. There has also been very considerable discussion—I have no need detain the House—[Interruption.] I am very glad to have that approbation, from whichever quarter it came: I shall ask the Whip to take his or her name.
      Mr. Bob Russell: It was the Whip.
      Mr. Straw: The Whip is a non-lawyer. There was a time when Whips on the Treasury Bench understood their duty, which was to ensure that Ministers' wishes were complied with and, in return for a healthy salary, to keep quiet at all times.
      As my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have explained, restrictions on child victims and witnesses before trial will be implemented if, after Royal Assent, we continue to be as concerned as we are about children being damaged by the nature of the reporting. However, I have good reason to hope that our concerns may well be allayed. Although we shall continue to keep the matter under review, it will, regardless, be possible to implement the restrictions only after a debate and vote in their favour in both Houses.
      I am very grateful for the level of consideration that the Bill has received, both in the other place and in this House. I should also like to express my appreciation for the positive and constructive contribution made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and his colleagues, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and his colleagues.
      The Bill has, quite rightly, been subject to argument. However, we have always—certainly since I have been at the Home Office—sought to recognise that, although Ministers make propositions to this House and to the other place, it is rare for proposals to be incapable of improvement. They have been improved by the House and the Committee doing their job, and I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to that process.
      The Bill is designed to deliver two key manifesto commitments: reduction in youth crime, and greater protection for sex-offence complainants and intimidated witnesses. Taken together with the rest of our crime-reduction programme, the Bill should help to rebuild the confidence that our citizens should have in the criminal justice system, which exists to serve them and exercise justice on their behalf.
      7.50 pm
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's remarks about our approach to the Bill. We promised on Second Reading that we would give it constructive scrutiny. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his comment that our contribution has been constructive. I believe that we have also been comprehensive. We have managed to make speedy progress, but we have looked carefully at all aspects of the Bill, even though at times, as now, it has been something of a solo effort on my part.
      The Home Secretary has clearly not acquainted himself with all the Committee Hansard reports, because his comments about lawyers are in stark contrast to what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East
      1278
      (Mr. Howarth), said in Committee. When we approached the more contentious and complex issues in part II relating to the conduct of rape trials, he agreed that not being a lawyer was an advantage. There is a reshuffle coming, but I felt that, for the benefit of all of us who are not lawyers, I ought to remind the Home Secretary that we can make a valid and important contribution, as I believe that we have done.
      We broadly support the Bill and agree with its objectives but we have some concerns, which have been well rehearsed in Committee and today. There is a lack of flexibility on youth justice, but we shall see how matters progress. We also have concerns about the Bill's impact on the immediate problem of youth offending in our communities. Like the measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the youth justice provisions in the Bill will be subject to extensive piloting. No one is saying that making sure that they get it right is not the way for the Government to proceed, but they must accept that that approach means that there is little immediate relief in prospect for communities throughout Britain blighted by the petty crime, vandalism and rowdy behaviour of youngsters. Even where the plans are piloted, only first-time offenders who plead guilty will be sent to a youth offender panel.
      It is clear from other exchanges that we have had—not on this Bill—that there is still scant evidence that the Government's other measures are having much impact on persistent young offenders. I am sure that the Home Secretary expects me to tell him that we shall make sure that when, in the usual fanfare of publicity, the Government announce the pilot areas for the youth offender panel reforms, we shall make sure that the rest of the country is aware that, for all the Government's talk about getting tough on the young thugs who terrorise housing estates and the wider community, the Government's plans are for the very long term and there is very little prospect of immediate relief. If our roles were reversed I am sure that the Home Secretary would be assuring me of the same.
      We welcome the provisions on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and we remain profoundly committed to a criminal justice system that encourages victims and witnesses to report crimes and enables them to give evidence easily and without intimidation. Although we have some questions about whether it was right to remove all discretion from the court on unrepresented defendants, we believe that it is right to protect victims, particularly victims of rape, from cross-examination by the defendant.
      On evidence of previous sexual behaviour, we agree that some changes in this area were long overdue, and that questions that were merely designed to embarrass, humiliate or blacken the complainant in the eyes of the jury should not be permitted.
      We have residual concerns—as will have been evident from the debate on new clause 2—about the clause 44 reporting restrictions. That is one element of the Bill about which I hope we have heard the last, and we hope that the order never sees the light of day. I still think that the Bill is deficient in that regard, but no matter. There is at least a mechanism within the Bill to give some comfort to the media. I hope that their confidence in that does not turn out to be misplaced.
      7.56 pm
      Mr. Beith: We support the Bill, and we have long campaigned for a fundamental reform of the youth justice system. We think that the Bill is an important step in that direction. Seventy per cent. of adults with a conviction started offending as young offenders. We have to address that problem of young offenders, and the Bill—particularly in its attempts to deal with first offenders among young offenders—is a valuable step in that direction.
      We welcome the second part of the Bill, particularly the proposals on complainants and witnesses in sexual offence cases. I strongly welcome the clauses that provide that defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences who choose to conduct their own defence, as is their right, may not cross-examine the alleged victim. Recent cases have made it clear that that provision was necessary, and I strongly welcome its inclusion in the Bill.
      The only aspect of the Bill about which we had serious doubts was the third part, dealing with reporting. The Government responded to our concerns and those of others, but they have taken what we considered to be a blunt instrument to be used against responsible sections of the press as well as irresponsible sections and, instead of refining it, have put it in a cupboard. It can be got out when they want it, but it is still a blunt instrument. If the Government attempt to bring in the orders, it will be unsatisfactory, as we will not be able to amend the provisions—it will be take it or leave it. That is the weakest feature of the Bill, and I hope that we will not see those powers brought in. That is one drawback in a Bill that we generally welcome and that we will support.
      7.58 pm
      Caroline Flint: May I say how much I and my colleagues welcome the Bill, which is historic and is about progress?
      We welcomed the assurances given in Committee, as well as the further support to be given to victims of domestic violence and adults with learning disabilities—something that has not been discussed this afternoon.
      Legislation is only as good as those who implement it. The Bill came about because the provisions that were made the last time the matter was discussed were not being implemented in the spirit in which they were discussed. We have been tackling that, and I was pleased to receive assurances from Ministers on that.
      In Committee, we received two assurances. The first was that we must give training to those judges who are in charge of implementing the legislation. The other was that, as soon as this Bill becomes law, there will be effective monitoring and evaluation of the law. We do not want to wait three or four years to call for a review, and we must make sure that the law is monitored and evaluated as it is implemented. In that way, we can make sure that there is good law.
      I thank the ministerial team for the way in which they have presented the Bill and worked with Committee members.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

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

      EC PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET FOR 2000
      That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. COM(99)200, the Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB) of the European Communities for 2000, and SEC(99)600, the Commission's Overview of the PDB; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community; and European Union Document No. 7698/99, Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 6th May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure; and supports the Government in welcoming the renewal of the IIA as an important contribution to increasing the efficiency of the budgetary procedure and to maintaining budgetary discipline.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That paragraph 2(a) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) shall not apply at the sitting on Monday 12th July, insofar as any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to the Eighth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 607) shall stand as first business.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    PETITIONS

      Hunting with Dogs
      8 pm
      Mr. Mike Hancock: I have great pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 42,500 people from throughout the United Kingdom, including many from my constituency, on the issue of hunting with dogs. The petition is sponsored by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
      The petition is yet another part of the jigsaw that is being put together that will, we hope, ultimately bring about the end of hunting in this country. Among the signatories are Anne Ruach from London and Dean and Jodi Hancock from Porchester in Hampshire. It gives me great pleasure to present the petition to the House.
      The petition
      Declares that we believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in modern Britain.
      The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to act on the overwhelming mandate it has received from Honourable Members and the public to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition.
      To lie upon the Table.

    Stroke Unit (Hull)
    Mr. Alan Johnson: The petition of the members of the OK Stroke club and their supporters had 16,000 signatures when they set out from Hull to London and 16,083 by the time that they completed the journey. The petition
    Declares that the lack of a specialist stroke unit in Hull and East Yorkshire means that there are avoidable deaths and avoidable disabilities in this area as a result of strokes. Most other parts of the country now have stroke units.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to do all in his power to ensure that a specialist stroke unit is provided for the people of Hull and East Yorkshire.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Rail Regulation (Wales)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    8.2 pm
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I begin by referring to the transport powers that have been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. I am wary of what Madam Speaker had to say on Wednesday, so I shall be careful about what I say. As I understand it, there is some limited rail investment through strategic development schemes and the Assembly can fund or regulate trunk roads, bus services and integrated transport packages. Local authorities have powers to fund local road construction and maintenance, bus services and some limited rail service development.
    Integrated public transport policies are among today's big ideas, and rightly so, but there is a considerable problem in ensuring an integrated, sustainable transport policy for Wales—the glaring absence of any substantial powers under present legislation for the national authority to co-ordinate rail transport with other forms of public transport.
    The White Paper on devolution suggested that the Assembly should be able to monitor the performance of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. It said:
    "The Assembly will also be able to invite evidence from various regulatory bodies including the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. Government policy therefore appears to be that the National Assembly should be able to monitor the activities of these bodies and make its views known. However, these bodies will remain accountable to Parliament at Westminster."
    One way forward for rail services in Wales may be through local authority funding. The Assembly has just taken over the transport powers of the Welsh Office, one of whose functions was to oversee passenger rail services in Wales. The departmental report for 1998 stated that more than £8 million was allocated to local authorities for improvements to the rail infrastructure between Cardiff and the valleys for the period 1996–97 to 1998–99. However, an all-Wales passenger transport authority would be preferable, as it would provide considerably more investment. The establishment of such a body would require primary legislation. At present, only metropolitan counties are passenger transport areas: only they, therefore, qualify for the establishment of passenger transport authorities or executives.
    The financial implications of funding and its sources will be an issue. Other matters to be considered will be block grants, the transfer of current Opraf payments, investment funding for railways from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and so on. The addition of the railways to the National Assembly's expenditure portfolio would require a negotiated settlement estimated at between £80 million to £100 million, based on passenger miles within each franchise operating in Wales. That figure would, of course, be reduced in line with the subsidy profile.
    Although there is a need to ensure that Wales is perceived as a country that is efficient and easily accessible to road-based inward investors and tourists, there is also a longer-term requirement for a sustainable transport policy that reduces both pollution and congestion. There is no doubt that Wales's road and rail network has been grossly underfunded for the past quarter of a century. To be frank, the picture is a bad one.

    1283
    There is a lot of work to be done, and the Minister more than anyone will realise how important it is to put the right transport infrastructure in place. It is likely that the greening of the road building programme by the previous Government was a Treasury-led, cost-cutting exercise. The Welsh Office has published two documents that are appropriate starting points, but they must be backed by adequate funding if policies are to be turned into actions and are not to become mere platitudes.
    The adequacy of the Welsh block grant—now transferred to the Assembly—will impact on road and rail expenditure, but at present no account is taken of any particular transport needs, nor of the current state of infrastructure in urban and rural Wales. Therefore, to overcome past underfunding, considerably higher amounts are required. The National Assembly has no control over expenditure in certain areas, such as major railway infrastructure. It faces the challenge of ensuring that Wales receives its fair share, and its relationship with the Strategic Rail Authority will be crucial.
    The consultation process on the SRA began yesterday. I understand that the authority's main purpose will be to provide a clear strategic direction for rail transport in Britain. It will also promote—inside the Government and among the public—passenger and freight transport by rail, and it will foster a climate that encourages private investment in the railways.
    The SRA will be the single body, accountable to the Secretary of State, responsible for strategic planning. It will co-ordinate and supervise the activities of the rail industry, as well as the disbursement of public funds. It will also have the clear aim of co-ordinating strategic objectives with the Government and other interested parties, which include passenger operators, consumers, freight operators and Railtrack. The SRA is also tasked to lead and promote a radical improvement in the integration of rail with other transport modes, and to maximise benefits to the rail user as far as possible, acting as an advocate of passengers and freight consumers.
    The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions enumerated its concerns and aims in its recent response to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. No one could argue with the Department's aims, but Wales is at a gross disadvantage. The National Assembly for Wales has a relative lack of power to oversee the strategic development of rail services in comparison with both the Scottish Parliament and the Greater London Authority. That is a raw deal for our railways. Creating an integrated transport policy will not be easy unless the powers are right.
    The SRA will work closely with key organisations, passenger transport executives and co-signatories to several franchise agreements. The Scottish Executive will have power to instruct and guide the SRA on certain aspects of rail services that are wholly in Scotland. The GLA will be able to procure enhanced rail services from the SRA and propose changes to the pattern of services in London. The Welsh Assembly, by contrast, will be consulted only on passenger service specifications. None of those powers will compromise the SRA's duty to plan the operation and development of the rail network strategically across Great Britain.
    1284
    The Welsh Assembly plainly has considerably weaker powers than the Scottish Parliament and the Greater London Authority, a distinction crucial to the economic development of Wales. A Cardiff office of the SRA could help properly to integrate rail services in Wales, which are currently poor. Back-Bench Members whinge, and Ministers get fed up of us, but I say nothing against the Minister by pointing out that rail services in Wales are probably at their lowest ebb.
    Siting an office in Cardiff could help in the short term. Consultation is beginning on the proposed Railways Bill. Will the Minister convey the idea of a Cardiff office to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions? It would help our economy as well as developing a sustainable transport policy for Wales. I want a passenger transport authority for Wales—but for the time being, a Welsh SRA would be a useful step.
    Last month, the Welsh Consumer Council reported on railways in "The European Connection: A report on transport connections to Europe". It found that railways in Wales were in a perilous state, never having been so poor. It observed that the system in Wales had become fragmented, failing to deliver any of the perceived benefits of privatisation. It opined that the quality of service to passengers had reached an all-time low.
    Old trains are being transferred from routes in England to Wales. Recently, a relatively new set was taken off the north Wales coast railway to be replaced by a 1957 set. That is not good enough on one of the main lines in north Wales. The report also observes that the Assembly will control budget subsidies for roads, but will have no control over railways. The different administrative locations will make integration and co-operation difficult. Its firm conclusion is that the National Assembly should create a passenger transport executive so that—inter alia—the needs of passengers come first, and so that all forms of public transport are integrated and there is sufficient investment by rail operators in new rolling stock, staff and stations to provide an efficient, all-round service.
    Three months ago, some high-powered Japanese entrepreneurs visited north Wales. They were intent on investing in the old county of Clywd in the eastern part of north Wales. Their arrival on train was delayed by two hours; shortly afterwards, they decided that investment was not a good idea. If that is not a graphic example of how the situation is hitting us economically, I do not know what is.
    We are beginning the consultation period on the Railways Bill. I urge the hon. Lady to bring these matters to the attention of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, so that the legitimate and deeply held concerns of the Welsh travelling public are met and so that, at the end of the day, Wales, too, will have a first-class, integrated public transport system with an excellent railway at its heart.
    8.16 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss railway regulation in Wales.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the key objectives identified at the national rail summit in February was to improve the quality of service for

    1285
    passengers while obtaining the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. One of the steps towards achieving that objective was the setting up, on 1 April, of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, under Sir Alastair Morton, with Mike Grant as the new franchising director. The work of that body is well under way. Our new Railways Bill will formally establish the Strategic Rail Authority on a statutory basis, as well as aiding our regulation of railways in general—including those in Wales.
    Our Bill will put right some of the more glaring faults of the previous Administration's privatisation. It will amend the tangled mess of railways legislation left by that Administration. They left our railways without a single voice, champion or focus. The railways were run as separate businesses, not a national network. What does our Railways Bill do?
    As I said, the Bill establishes the Strategic Rail Authority. It sets out the mission statement for the SRA: to promote the use of the railway network for passengers and for freight; to secure the development of the railway network; and to contribute towards integrated transport. The Bill requires the SRA to produce a strategy or strategies to fulfil that mission. It transfers the duties of consumer protection to the SRA and a simplified closure procedure to the Secretary of State. It retains the rail regulator as an independent economic regulator, subject only to high-level guidance from Ministers on the Government's transport policy. It allows the SRA to ask the rail regulator to direct owners of railway facilities, such as trains or stations, to enhance them or provide new facilities. The Bill will enable the SRA to step in and operate trains if a franchise goes bankrupt, or if there are no acceptable private sector bids when a franchise is re-let.
    The Bill allows the SRA, and the rail regulator, to impose more effective sanctions on those who break the terms of their franchise agreements or licences. In contrast to the position under the Railways Act 1993, contraventions that may have caused widespread inconvenience and loss, but which have been remedied by the time lengthy enforcement action is completed, could in future attract penalties. The Government have agreed in principle that the SRA will be able to retain income from penalties and reinvest it in the railways.
    It is vital that our railways are run as a national network and because of that they must remain a reserved matter. However, that will be to the advantage of Wales—for which proper rail links are, I know, extremely important. Indeed, in his closing remarks, the hon. Gentleman demonstrated that vital importance in respect of inward investment.
    We also know and respect the needs and concerns of the devolved Administration. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed with the our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that there will be Welsh representation on the Strategic Rail Authority, and that the authority will consult the Assembly about the exercise of its functions as they relate to Wales.
    The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy suggested the establishment of a separate SRA for Wales, but, as I have said, what is overwhelmingly important is for us to return to the concept of a national integrated network. An SRA for Wales could not form a strategy for the whole network, and that would disadvantage Wales as well as the wider railway network.
    1286
    It is essential for the SRA to be able to ensure that the railways are run as a national network, and to produce a strategy for the whole network. Most Welsh services start, end, or pass through England. Cutting them off—making them a separate entity—would lead to even more fragmentation. As I have said, proper, coherent links are vital to Wales.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the different position in Scotland. The position is different there because the network is largely self-contained. A Scottish policy will not have the impact on the rest of Great Britain that a Welsh policy might have; nor will it fragment Scottish services. The powers of Scottish Ministers will, however, be exercisable only within the Great Britain strategic framework.
    Given the huge pressure on legislative time in the House of Commons, the introduction of the Railways Bill now is, we believe, an unequivocal demonstration of the resolve of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed of the Government as a whole, to fulfil our side of the bargain and improve our railway services. That will be of inordinate benefit to Wales, and to Great Britain as a whole. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is both a welcome and a fundamental step towards a better railway, which, in turn, will feed into the aims and objectives announced last year in our integrated transport White Paper.
    An obvious factor that influences people' s choice of transport is performance. The main concern of passengers is that their trains run, and run to time. As the hon. Gentleman said, performance in many parts of Wales is, or has been, below par, notably the service recently provided by the Valley Lines—formerly known as Cardiff Railway—and Wales and West Passenger Trains. Long-term problems have also been experienced on Great Western Trains and the west coast main line.
    The franchise agreements for all but InterCity operators include a punctuality incentive regime, under which companies are rewarded for improved performance or penalised for poor performance. It will come as no surprise to rail users in Wales, or indeed to the hon. Gentleman, to hear that between them Valley Lines, Wales and West Passenger Trains, Great Western and Central Trains paid more than £4 million under these regimes in the financial year up to 31 March 1999. That is a lamentable advertisement for rail services in Wales.
    We have made it clear that poor performance by train operators will not be tolerated. Last November, an action plan was agreed with franchisees and Railtrack to secure short-term improvements in performance. Measures agreed included 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint "hit squad" to identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots, a national "trouble shooter" team to tackle punctuality problems, and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their rail services, and to help measure performance across the network.
    As I have said, building on the success of the November meeting, the national rail summit took place in February to assess progress on the action plan, and to put in place solutions to tackle medium to long-term problems. We also launched the national passenger survey, and the start of a consultation with the rail industry and passenger representatives on a new standard measure of overall performance to reflect the experience

    1287
    of passengers more accurately. The rail industry also accepted our challenge to improve punctuality over the next year, and committed itself to deliver real performance improvements that are measurable year on year.
    When franchises are renegotiated, past performance will be one of the criteria on which operators are assessed and considered for future involvement in the industry. We have warned all train operators that those who fail to improve services will have no long-term future in our railways.
    There are some significant new rail developments in Wales. The first of these is bilingual signing, and I understand that Wales and West Passenger Trains is in the process of installing bilingual customer information systems at all of the stations within Wales that it manages. I welcome that initiative as an example of a train operator responding to the wishes of passengers in Wales. The second is the north to south Wales fast train service, which was announced on 25 March. A feasibility study has been conducted and, although funding has yet to be finalised, the anticipated start date remains summer 2000. Thirdly, while I welcome the increase in frequency of Great Western trains between London Paddington and Bristol from June, I welcome even more its increasing the frequency of London to Cardiff trains by 2001.
    We are committed to encouraging more people to travel by rail and to ensuring more investment in the rail network. That is why we have made available additional funding for a new rail passenger partnership scheme, launched on 24 May and aimed specifically at providing support for locally sponsored services that are not commercially viable. Applications for funding will be
    1288
    assessed on planning criteria that take wider social benefits into account. Guidance has been issued to local authorities on how to bid for funds under that scheme.
    Proposals for RPP support can be submitted by various bodies, including local authorities, passenger transport executives and authorities, and train operating companies, either as individuals or consortiums. Local authorities and others are encouraged to come forward with proposals. Formal bids will be appraised to ensure that they are consistent with Opraf's planning criteria and the franchising director's objectives, instructions and guidance. Bids will have to demonstrate the achievement of value for money in the delivery of the scheme. Copies of the RPP bidding guidance and planning criteria have already been sent to all local authorities.
    I repeat, our perception is that it is vital that our railways are run as a national network, and that that will be to the advantage of Wales. We recognise the needs and concerns of the devolved Administrations and we are listening to them. The Government would strongly and wholeheartedly endorse the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the needs of railways as part of a properly integrated transport system. However, as I said, we believe that to split off the railways in Wales would make the situation in Wales even worse. Many of the problems that passengers in Wales suffer are, as we know, owed to the failure of previous Administrations adequately to invest in our railways. The Government are committed to change that, not only by our policies, but by our approach to regulation and through the additional funding that we have found for our railways. I assure the hon. Gentleman and all the people of Wales that Wales is central to our considerations and to the delivery of our programme.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eight o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Ceasefires
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the status of her review of the state of terrorist ceasefires. [87879]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State keeps the ceasefires of all paramilitary organisations under continuous review. The judgment needs to be made in the round, taking into account all relevant information including the advice she receives regularly from her security advisers.

  Drumcree
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards solving the Drumcree Church parade difficulties. [87878]

  Mr. Ingram
  Every effort has been made by both the British and Irish Governments to reach a satisfactory resolution to the Drumcree dispute. No such resolution has yet been reached, but our efforts continue. The decision taken by the Parades Commission to reroute the planned parade by Portadown LOL District is a legal one, and I am pleased to note that on Sunday 4 July the marchers complied with the conditions imposed by the Parades Commission.

  Barry Mason
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) of 9 June 1999,Official Report, column 326, on Barry Mason, what action she plans to take; and if she will make a statement. [87765]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]: The Royal Ulster Constabulary are presently liaising with the West Midland police to see if there are any lines of inquiry arising from the claims made by Barry Mason. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to take any action herself.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what legislation he plans to introduce to implement his proposed reforms of the Post Office. [90730]

  Mr. Byers
  Much of the package of reforms for the Post Office that I have set out in the White Paper I have published today can be implemented without any change in the law. But I propose three pieces of legislation to complete the reform package:
  580
  First, I am today laying an order under Section 69 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 to reduce the Post Office monopoly to letters for which the post is not more than 50 pence (or which do not weigh more than 150 grams). The new limits will have effect from 1 April 2000. This will supersede the Order made in 1981 to fix the monopoly limit to items costing less than £1 for a period of 25 years, ending in 2006.

  Secondly, I am today also making available the draft of a Regulation I propose to make shortly under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to implement the European Union Postal Services Directive on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services. As the intention of the Directive is, inter alia, to provide a regulatory framework for postal services and the creation of a national regulatory authority, and to establish common rules for the provision of a universal postal service, the proposed Regulation will establish a new regulatory regime, designating the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and a new Postal Services Commission, that will assume its duties from 1 April 2000, as the national regulatory authorities for the postal sector in the United Kingdom, and to amend the Post Office Act 1969 so as to define in the legislation the minimum levels of service to be provided by the Post Office.

  Thirdly, as soon as Parliamentary time permits, I will bring forward primary legislation to consolidate the reform of the Post Office and the postal market. The Bill will
  ensure that the Post Office can take full and certain advantage of the commercial freedoms proposed in the package;
  convert the Post Office into a plc to underline the commercialisation of the business (though the legislation will not provide for any disposal of shares without further Parliamentary approval, and in particular no share sale will be possible without further primary legislation);
  clarify and consolidate the independent regulatory and consumer representative framework, putting it on a basis similar to that for the private utilities; and
  enable any reduction in the Post Office monopoly to be put on a permanent (rather than temporary) basis.

  Power Stations
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce further decisions on power station proposals currently with his Department. [90734]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today given directions under Section 14 (3) of the Energy Act 1976 to Southern Electric and Sabre Power not to proceed with a number of their gas-fired schemes. The schemes affected are Southern Electric's mini power plants (49 MW) at Loudwater, Nr High Wycombe and Quidhampton, Salisbury and Sabre Power's mini power plants (50 MW) at Hirwan, Rhondda and Bridgwater, Somerset. These decisions have been taken 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).
  581
  Decisions on other proposals under consideration will be announced in due course.

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

  EU Takeovers Directive
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the legislative changes required by the proposed EU Takeovers Directive. [90092]

  Dr. Howells
  It would not be possible to say, until the Directive had been finally adopted by the Council and the European Parliament, following its consideration for the second time by the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure, precisely what legislative changes would be required to Implement the Directive. However, it is likely that such legislation would formally designate the supervisory body which would be responsible in the UK for regulating takeovers (this could be a private body such as the Takeover Panel). In addition, some basic aspects of the regulatory framework set out in the Directive—such as the general principles which are presently included in Article 3—would no doubt have to be incorporated into legislation.

  Genetic Engineering
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the United Kingdom patents which have been(a) applied for and (b) granted since 18 May 1998 in respect of genetically engineered animals and processes for creating such animals. [89932]

  Dr. Howells
  I can only give information about patent applications which have been published. Prior to publication such information is confidential. There have been a total of three applications filed under the Patents Act 1977 and published since 18 May 1998 relating to genetically engineered animals and processes for preparing them. Patent No. GB 2331301 relates to a transgenic mammal for use as a model in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, Patent No. GB 2327679 relates to transgenic fish and Patent No. GB 2331751 relates to methods of cloning animal embryos. Only Patent No. GB 2327679 has so far been granted.

  Three other patents have been granted since 18 May 1998. They are Patent No. GB 2312899 for transgenic mammals useful as models for the treatment of bone disorders, GB 2291646 which relates to transgenic fish transformed with growth hormone and GB 228807 which relates to mammals transformed with a gene encoding a neurotoxin.

  This information covers only applications filed at the UK Patent Office and does not include applications filed at the European Patent Office and which may have the legal effect of UK patents when granted by that Office.

  EU Artists' Resale Right Directive
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the EU Artists' Resale Right Directive. [90089]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are concerned that the current proposal would drive sales out of the EU and hit our art market far harder than others, while bringing little 582
  or no benefit to the majority of artists. We therefore welcome the postponement of a decision on the draft Directive by the 21 June Internal Market Council to allow more time for discussions to continue and see if a way forward can be found to overcome the very substantial difficulties the UK and others still see with it.

  Weights and Measures
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings he has had with members of the National Market Traders Federation to discuss whether to seek an extension to the derogation permitting loose from bulk produce to be sold in imperial only measures. [90096]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: I have had no specific meetings with the National Market Traders Federation to discuss metrication but I met representatives of the Federation at a reception in the House of Commons on 10 May 1999. The Federation had previously submitted written representations to me concerning the derogation.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the likelihood of the United States adopting metric measurements as the authorised units for pre-packaged food by 31 December 2009. [90101]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: As part of the US metrication programme, pre-packaged goods (foods and non-foods) marketed in the USA are already required to be marked with an indication of quantity in metric and US customary units. The European Commission is in discussion with the US Government about permitting indications of quantity to be given only in metric units by 2009.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) market traders, (b) delicatessens and (c) other retailers arising from the expiry of the derogation permitting loose from bulk produce to be sold using imperial measures only. [90103]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: The DTI published a compliance cost assessment when the legislation to phase in the gram and the kilogram was made in 1994. The assessment identified the conversion or replacement of weighing machines as the main cost for traders. At today's prices, according to the United Kingdom Weighing Federation, the average cost of a conversion is about £100 and the cost of a new weighing machine starts at about £450. According to the Federation, 80 per cent. of machines should be capable of conversion. The cost of a set of metric weights is about £50.

  If, as the Government expect, the European Commission's proposal to permit dual indications in metric and non-metric units until 31 December 2009 is adopted, weighing machines that show metric and imperial units will not have to be converted or replaced if the imperial units are not larger than the metric ones.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he made to the European Commission calling for it to extend the derogation permitting loose from bulk produce to be sold using imperial measures only; and what reasons underlie his policy on making such representations. [90095]
  583
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: The Government have not made any representations to the European Commission to extend the derogation in Directive 80/181/EEC on units of measurement, under which the ounce and the pound may be used until 31 December 1999 as the legal units in the UK for goods sold loose from bulk and weighed at the point of sale.

  I intend reporting to Parliament in the near future concerning the adoption of metric units in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the European Union's Trade Commissioner, and whether such discussions have included the expiry of the derogation permitting loose from bulk produce to be sold using imperial measures only. [90100]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: The Government have not discussed the derogation for goods sold loose with Members of the European Commission.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures his Department has taken to inform market traders of the consequences of the expiry of the derogation permitting loose from bulk produce to be sold using only imperial measures; and what was the cost of such measures. [90102]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: The DTI is putting together a programme of measures to inform and advise small traders and their customers about using the gram and kilogram for goods sold loose. The projected cost of the programme is £400,000.

  Financial Failure
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish his Department's internal report on reducing the stigma of financial failure. 190292]

  Dr. Howells
  When additional work has been undertaken in order to further develop the areas identified by officials a Consultation Document will be published, probably during the coming winter, 1999–2000.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the Government reviews and reports currently being conducted into reform of the insolvency laws. [90293]

  Dr. Howells
  Two reviews of Insolvency Law and Practice were announced in the Competitiveness White Paper. The first was an internal review of insolvency (and particularly bankruptcy) law and the extent to which it contributed to the stigma of failure and inhibited enterprise. Officials reported to Ministers on 30 April 1999, and work to further develop the ideas generated is underway. The second review is a joint DTI/HM Treasury Review of Company Rescue Mechanisms, the Terms of Reference of which were announced on 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 580. That review will now report by the end of 1999.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to sell a 49 per cent. stake in British Nuclear Fuels Limited. [90299]

  Mr. Battle
  I hope to be able to make an announcement about the future of BNFL shortly.

  Disqualified Directors
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to prevent disqualified company directors becoming involved with new companies. [90094]

  Dr. Howells
  Action is taken by a combination of active monitoring of the appointment of new directors by Companies House and of the enforcement of disqualification law by the Insolvency Service.

  Companies House records details of all disqualified directors in a public register and since 1995 has been taking continuous steps to improve the accuracy of, and access to, the register. It has also been carrying out checks to ensure that disqualified directors resign their directorships in active companies. It also routinely checks that new directors of companies notified to it are not already disqualified.

  In addition, the Insolvency Service—through Official Receivers and insolvency practitioners—reports contraventions of disqualification orders for prosecution; liaises with central and local government departments and agencies which may identify breaches in the course of their own contacts with businesses; and has set up a telephone hotline for the public and business to report disqualified directors who continue to act while banned.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of the climate change levy to his Department and (b) the savings from the reduction in national insurance contributions that will occur when it is introduced. [88862]

  Mr. Spellar
  The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions on the Ministry of Defence will depend on the rates of climate change levy. The final rates of climate change levy will not be set until Finance Bill 2000.

  In addition, the Government are still considering a number of detailed issues on the tax treatment of different energy products which could have a significant impact in some instances. It is, therefore, not possible to give definitive figures about the impact of the climate change levy on the Ministry of Defence.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the economic impact of the climate change levy on those chemical industries which are based on the electrolysis process; and if he will make a statement; [88198]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the number of extra jobs which will be created as a result of the reduction in employers' National Insurance Contributions

  585
  and (b) the extent of job losses in manufacturing industry following the introduction of the climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [88406]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply

  The climate change levy is estimated to save around 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010, thereby making a very significant contribution to meeting the Government's legally-binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the Kyoto Protocol, and its domestic coal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010.

  The climate change levy will entail no increase in the overall burden of tax on business as the revenue will be fully recycled via a 0.5 percentage point cut in employer National Insurance Contributions. Business will also benefit from an additional £50 million for schemes aimed at promoting energy efficiency and support for renewable sources of energy, like solar and wind power.

  Following Lord Marshall's recommendations, and the Government's Statement of Intent on Environmental Taxation, the Government recognises the need for special consideration to be given to energy intensive industries given their energy usage and exposure to international competition. Consequently, significantly lower rates of tax will be set for those energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving their energy efficiency. A number of sectors including the aluminium, iron and steel, and chemicals sectors are currently involved in those negotiations. The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in National Insurance Contributions on individual sectors will depend on the rates at which the levy is set. The final rates of the levy will not be set until Finance Bill 2000.

  The Government is keen to work with business on the detailed design and administration issues relating to the levy. HM Customs and Excise have just completed a further round of consultation on these issues and the Government is assessing these responses alongside other representations in deciding how to design the levy to maximise the environmental benefits while safeguarding competitiveness.

  As the Government's climate change consultation document makes clear, all sectors of the economy will need to play their part in tackling the problem of climate change. It is not the Government's intention to introduce new taxes on domestic fuel and power, for social policy reasons. However, there are a number of measures in place to encourage energy efficiency in households, including the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. These measures are set out in the climate change consultation document and will form part of the climate change strategy to be published later this year.

  The UK is not alone in having to meet targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or in using economic instruments to do so. Since 1990, seven EU countries have introduced explicit taxes on the carbon or energy content of fuels, including most recently, the Eco-Tax' introduced by the German Government. On current projections, most OECD countries will have to introduce new measures of one form or another to meet their Kyoto obligations.

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997 stating in each case whether or not the results were published. [89692]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

DEFENCE

  RMAS Arrochar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the RMAS Arrochar, based in Portsmouth, is being disposed of. [89968]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service, RMAS, Naval Armament Vessels are employed primarily for freighting armament stores and other dry cargo.

  A reduction in the freighting task as a result of the Strategic Defence Review, together with a decrease in the requirement to transport munitions for British forces in Germany, has cut the total volume of routine work to a level which can satisfactorily be met by using one vessel.

  An independent study is being undertaken to assess the material state of uhe two vessels, RMAS Arrochar and RMAS Kinterbury, before we decide which vessel to retain in service.

  Leeming Village
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for his Department's houses in Leeming Village; and if he will make a statement. [90085]

  Mr. Spellar
  Of the 32 houses in Leeming Village, 11 are currently occupied. The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) plans to release 20 of the remaining properties back to Annington Homes Ltd. next year.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Bus Lane (M4)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many buses a day use the bus lane on the M4 between the M25 and the elevated section; and how many cars a day use the same section of motorway. [88491]

  Mr. Prescott
  The eastbound carriageway of the M4 motorway, between junction 3 and the elevated section where the motorway reduces from 3 lanes to 2, incorporates the bus lane. Based on the first three weeks monitoring of the operation of the road since the opening of the bus lane, 450 buses a day use the bus lane and some 49,200 cars use the same section of motorway. Additionally 2,900 taxis use the bus lane and 2,400 commercial vehicles use the motorway.
  587
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from 10 Downing Street in respect of the M4 bus lane. [88636]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: I received no representations from the Prime Minister, but my Department and 10 Downing Street have discussed the improvements in traffic flow for all vehicles which have occurred.

  George Green Tunnel (Wanstead)
  Mr. Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 June 1999, Official Report, columns 404-05, on George Green Tunnel, how many vehicles were employed in the limited staged incident on 28 May; how many London Fire Brigade vehicles attended; and if he will place a copy of the Fire Brigade's report in the Library. [89391]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Three cars were used to simulate an accident in the eastbound bore of the tunnel and three London Fire Brigade appliances attended. The publication of the report is a matter for the Fire Brigade. I would not normally place copies of such reports in the Library but, subject to the Fire Brigade's agreement, I will send my hon. Friend a copy as soon as one is available.

  Ministerial Visits
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what dates he has made official visits to the New Forest, East constituency since 2 May 1997. [89630]

  Mr. Prescott
  None.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons he has not replied to the(a) letter dated 16 March and (b) fax dated 25 May from the hon. Member for New Forest, East. [89631]

  Mr. Prescott
  Because the matter was dealt with by our offices over the telephone.

  Bus Passes
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that mental health service users have the same legal entitlement to local authority bus passes as physically disabled people. [89545]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Outside London, local authorities may provide concessionary travel for people who are mentally handicapped, but not for people who are mentally ill (except for those who would be refused a driving licence on medical grounds). Local authorities also have the power to provide concessionary travel for people with a number of specified physical disabilities (including those who are blind) as well as those people with a disability or injury which seriously impairs their ability to walk. In all these instances, the decision on whether to allow concessionary travel for any or all of these groups of people is a matter for the local authority.
  588
  In London, local authorities have the legal power to provide concessionary travel for people who are blind, or who have a disability or injury which seriously impairs their ability to walk.

  Millennium Urban Village
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reasons for the resignation of the architect responsible for designing the Millennium Urban Village at Greenwich; and if the sustainable aspects of conservation and design have been changed from the original project proposals. [89733]

  Mr. Caborn
  I cannot comment on the reasons for the resignation of HTA Architects Ltd. from the Greenwich Millennium Village project, since that is a commercial matter between HTA and its client. However, the lead architect responsible for the Village masterplan has publicly expressed his continued commitment to the scheme. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked English Partnerships for a full report on progress against the original aspirations for the Village, but we are confident that this exciting development will, as planned, set high standards of innovation and sustainability.

  Public Footways
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to discourage parking on public footways; and if he will make a statement. [89933]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highway Code (Rule 218) makes it clear that motorists should not park on the footway or pavement as it can seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, the visually impaired and people with prams and pushchairs. Enforcement is a matter for the police under the law relating to obstruction.

  Motorists should also be aware that where there are yellow line or clearway restrictions in operation, it is an offence to park on the adjacent pavement or verge.

  Pavement parking is a specific offence in London, unless there is a positively signed exemption. Local authorities in London are generally responsible for enforcement of pavement parking under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

  Elsewhere, local authorities can also make pavement parking a specific offence in individual streets or over a wider area by the making of traffic regulation orders and placing the appropriate signs. We are encouraging local authorities outside London to apply for decriminalised parking enforcement powers under the 1991 Act as this offers scope for them to target enforcement where it is most needed—such as pavement parking.

  We also issue advice to local authorities on the use of largely self-enforcing methods, such as bollards, to prevent or deter pavement parking (Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/93).

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the use of alternatives to HFCs in refrigeration; and if he will make a statement [89953]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government do not promote one refrigerant over another but encourage business and industry to choose the safest, most environmentally acceptable and energy efficient system for each particular application.

  The Government have also agreed a Declaration of Intent with the refrigeration and air conditioning industry with the aim of reducing emissions of HFCs. The Declaration recommends that the servicing, maintenance and decommissioning of equipment containing HFCs are carried out only by competent persons. It also encourages all reasonably practicable precautionary measures to minimise refrigerant leakage, and recommends that refrigerants are recovered for reuse, reclamation or disposal during servicing and prior to equipment decommissioning.

  We are reviewing the effectiveness of this Declaration and the other voluntary agreements on minimising HFC emissions as part of the development of a new climate change programme to meet the UK's legally binding target of 12.5 per cent. reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2008–12, and move towards the domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

  Wild Boar
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to designate wild boar as(a) vermin and (b) game; and if he will make a statement. [89938]

  Mr. Meale
  There are no plans to designate wild boar as vermin or game.

  Wild boar are not protected and may be killed or taken by owners and occupiers of land using any method, e.g. shooting or trapping, which is not prohibited by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  London Transport
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will arrange for London Transport to disclose the terms regarding times, frequency and interchange arrangements sent to those invited to tender for any bus service. [89942]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for London Transport. Although they do not publish details of the invitation to tender, I understand that where changes to a bus route are proposed, London Transport do provide details in terms of the route and service frequency as part of the consultation process. If these details remain unchanged, the information will already be in the public domain.

  Concessionary Fares (Schoolchildren)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to issue guidelines to local authorities 590
  regarding concessionary fares for children travelling to and from school in order to reduce the volume of school traffic at peak times. [89918]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Concessionary fares are essentially a matter for locally elected councils. However, my Department, with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health, published on 30 June a booklet entitled "School travel strategies and plans—a best practice guide for local authorities". This set out many instances of steps that have been taken in different parts of the country to improve safety and reduce car use on the journey to school; it included an example of the introduction of lower fares for pupils.

  North West Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what are(a) the name of the landlord and (b) the address of the site of the new premises to be occupied by the North West Development Agency and related activities in Penrith, Cumbria; [88767]

  (2) what the terms of the lease are for the property to be occupied by English Partnerships and other North West Development Agency operations at Penrith; [88758]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the comparative costs of locating North West Development Agency activities in premises (a) owned by English Partnerships in Cockermouth and (b) rented in Penrith. [88768]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: Decisions on location are a matter for the North West Development Agency. I understand that the Agency has not yet taken a final decision on the location of the Penrith office. Discussions are underway with Allen Commercial Development Agency in respect of a building on the Penrith 40 Business Park at Junction 40 of the M6.

  The annual rental costs and other terms of a lease are thus still under negotiation but I understand that the rental cost may be in the order of £10 per square foot. The opportunity cost of the Agency occupying the premises in Cockermouth transferred to it from English Partnership is about £4.50 per square foot.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the names of those organisations and individuals who nominated each member of the Board of the North West Development Agency. [89062]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 6 July 1999,Official Report, columns 449–50.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of officials in the North West Region in the nomination and selection of each person appointed to the Board of the North West Development Agency. [89063]

  Mr. Meale
  The appointment of members to the Board of the Regional Development Agencies was carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice and Guidance laid down by Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Government Offices in the Regions were involved in the sift of candidates and the interviews. Independent assessors participated at the sift and interview stages to

  591
  ensure independent scrutiny of the process, and that the appointments procedures were fair and consistently applied. The final decisions on the appointments were made by Ministers.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have for a direct Channel Tunnel rail link with the north east of England. [90257]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 340–41, the commissioning of a thorough and independent review of regional Channel Tunnel services. On 17 June the consultancy firm Arthur D. Little were appointed to undertake this review, and it is underway. The review will be thorough and wide ranging in its consideration of alternative options. It will, in particular, seek to assess the regional economic and social benefits of regional Eurostar services, and will examine the proposals put forward by the Virgin Group and the report produced last year by Inter-Capital and Regional Rail Ltd. The final report is due to be submitted at the end of October, and we expect to make a statement to the House before the end of the year.

  M60
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the M60 from(a) Denton to Hollinwood and (b) Hollinwood to Middleton to open. [90320]

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

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, dated 8 July 1999:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, has asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Lawrie Haynes, to reply to your recent question about expected opening dates for the M60 Denton to Hollinwood and M60 Hollinwood to Middleton road contracts. I am replying in Lawrie's absence from the office.
  Contract 1: Denton to Medlock (Hollinwood in your question) was awarded in 1996 as a three year contract in the then traditional form in which much of the risk remains with the Highways Agency. Problems arose on this contract due largely to a lack of suitable clay material to construct a replacement dam. An extension to the contract period was granted to summer 2000. Suitable materials have now been identified and the contract is on course for completion in summer 2000.
  Contract 3: Medlock to Middleton was awarded as a 26 month design and build contract in April 1998, using the Agency's new procurement strategy. This contract has been selected as one of the demonstration projects under the Egan "Rethinking Contract" initiative. This is one of the 50 projects selected to demonstrate the commitment of government and industry to improve the industry's performance by identifying and delivering best practice. It remains on schedule for completion in summer 2000.

  Housing Needs Indices
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the review of the needs indices used in the allocation of housing capital resources to local authorities and registered social landlords. [90503]
  592
  Ms Armstrong
  A consultation paper is to be published today seeking views on a number of proposals for revisions to the needs indices to be used in the allocation of resources for 2000–01. The Paper will also seek views on a number of issues on the longer term development of the indices. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Urban Renewal
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what part English Partnerships will play in the implementation of the report by the Urban Task Force "Towards an Urban Renaissance". [90280]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are currently considering the recommendations of the Urban Task Force report "Towards an Urban Renaissance". As part of this, English Partnerships will fully contribute its thinking.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what budget each regional development agency has for the year 1999–2000; [90284]

  (2) what were the set-up costs of the regional development agencies; and how much are the projected running costs for the current financial year; [90285]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), on 17 May 1999,Official Report, columns 246–48, which gave details of resource allocations to regional development agencies (RDAs) for this financial year. In the last financial year, when they were set up, RDAs received grant in aid of £5.138 million.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much in grants has been allocated by each regional development agency since its inception. [90286]

  Mr. Caborn
  Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) took on their executive functions on 1 April 1999. Between then and 30 June RDAs have paid the following amounts in grant:

  RDA

  £ million

  One North East

  0.762

  North West

  1.310

  Yorkshire Forward

  2.558

  East Midlands

  1.434

  Adcantage West Midlands

  0.981

  East of England

  0.311

  South East

  2,117

  South West

  3.020

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much public money will be received by English Partnerships in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [90281]
  593
  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 448.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much money English Partnerships has granted to British industry in the latest year for which figures are available; [90282]

  (2) how much money English Partnerships plans to provide in grant to British industry over the next financial year. [90283]

  Mr. Caborn
  The principal means of support for British industry is through English Partnerships Partnership Investment Programme (PIP). Grant in aid for PIP amounted to £200.7 million in 1998–99 and there is planned expenditure of £185 million in 1999–2000.

  Rail Vehicle Accessibility
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the fleet of new trains to be introduced into service by Central Trains Ltd. and Anglia Railways Train Services Ltd. complies with the provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998; and if he will make a statement. [90800]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As I explained in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 167, we are expecting to receive a number of exemption applications from train operating companies whose designs for new rail vehicles were well advanced prior to the 1998 Regulations coming into force.

  We have received applications from both Central Trains Ltd. for their Class 170/5 rail vehicles and Anglia Railways Train Services Ltd. for their Class 170/2 rail vehicles. The exemptions have been assessed by our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. They are mostly of a minor nature and have been requested for a relatively short time only.

  The exemptions will not prevent disabled people from using the new trains. Indeed we believe that their introduction will make a significant contribution to improving mobility opportunities for disabled people. Exemption Orders have been laid in Parliament today.

  Shellfish Waters Directive
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce new designations under the European Commission's Shellfish Waters Directive. [90923]

  Mr. Meacher
  A list of 93 areas in England to be designated under the Shellfish Waters Directive has been placed in the House. New designations will be made in 76 locations and the existing 17 designations will be included within revised boundaries for those areas.

  These new designations take account of views expressed in a wide ranging public consultation exercise. I believe that they will more than meet the expectations
  594
  of the shellfish industry. This extensive package of new designations will improve our environmental credentials in Europe. It represents very good news for the shellfish industry, the quality of whose harvests will be improved. But, more importantly from a water quality viewpoint, it should be good news for environmentalists, who should see yet further improvements in water quality around our coasts and in estuaries. Pollution control measures for designated waters will help improve nearby bathing waters.

  I believe that all shellfish waters currently in need of protection are now covered by the pollution prevention measures which apply following designation. But I will keep the situation under review so that other shellfish areas can be protected where necessary.

  For public health reasons, we need to minimise the levels of bacteria in shellfish. The Government's aim is that bacteriological standards should be achieved in designated waters which allow harvesting areas to achieve at least category B standard under the system applied by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to classify shellfish harvesting areas for food safety purposes.

  We expect the total cost of improvements to continuous and intermittent discharges affecting shellfish waters in England to be around £81 million between 2000 and 2005. Much of this expenditure is necessary to achieve other water quality and environmental objectives, including those for bathing waters. The current Periodic Review of water company price limits will include allowance for the necessary investment by water companies.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to bring forward new regulations on tree preservation orders; and if he will make a statement. [90924]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations have been laid in both Houses today, and are due to come into force on 2 August. The Regulations will replace all existing secondary legislation in England and Wales on the subject of tree preservation orders.

  A consultation paper setting out our proposals for these Regulations was issued in July last year. A summary of responses to the consultation paper, 204 in all, has been placed in the House Library.

  A large majority of respondents broadly supported our proposals, so we have modelled the new Regulations closely on the provisions in the consultation paper.

  We have made some revisions, however, in response to detailed points made in consultation. Local authorities were concerned that our proposals on compensation would lead to an unwelcome increase in petty claims for minor loss or damage caused by protected trees, so we have taken steps to rule out such claims by setting a lower limit of £500. In response to a general call for tree preservation orders to be circulated more widely, local authorities will be required to copy each new order to the people whose property adjoins the land on which the protected trees stand. In response to concerns that our proposal to exempt the pruning of fruit trees was open-ended, we have included new provisions making

  595
  clear that such pruning must be carried out in accordance with good horticultural practice. Our proposals for speeding up appeals to the Secretary of State, which are made against a local authority's refusal of consent to do work on protected trees and handled without an inquiry or hearing, have also been revised to bring them into line with forthcoming reforms of planning appeals.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kashmir
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will provide assistance to innocent people who have had lives and property damaged on either side of the Kashmir line of control by Indian forces. [89890]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  As we state in the Conflict Reduction and Humanitarian Assistance Policy Statement, we will provide humanitarian assistance to people affected by armed conflict, wherever this may be (a copy of the Statement is in the Library of the House). We will consider proposals to relieve the humanitarian needs of people on either side of the Line of Control in accordance with our policy statement.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on the currency in Kosovo; and when a final decision on the currency to be used in Kosovo will be taken. [90127]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Such decisions are for the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

  Libya
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions have taken place between Ministers and officials in his Department and those in the Department of Trade and Industry, concerning delegations of hon. Members intending to visit Libya; [90097]

  (2) what advice has been provided by his Department to hon. Members intending to join delegations visiting Libya. [90098]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the House on 7 July 1999, Official Report, columns 1033–34.

  Commonwealth Head of Government Meetings
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the procedure for drawing up the agenda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings; and when the agenda for the next meeting will be(a) determined and (b) published. [90109]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The agenda for a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) is initially drawn up by the host Government in consultation with the Commonwealth Secretariat. This provisional agenda is 596
  then circulated to all Heads of Government for comment. We understand that a provisional agenda for the forthcoming CHOGM, in November in South Africa, will be circulated in September. However, the South African Government have already proposed that the agenda be centred around the special theme of "People-Centred Development: The Challenge of Globalisation".

  "Reinventing the Commonwealth"
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Foreign Policy Centre's recent report on Reinventing the Commonwealth. [90112]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We share the view of the Foreign Policy Centre and other organisations that the role of the Commonwealth in the 21' century needs careful re-examination, particularly in order to ensure that its values, objectives and principles are more widely understood and shared. We consider the Centre's report a useful contribution to the debate.

  UN Commission on Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the substantive resolutions and decisions made at the 55'h session of the UN Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva on 22 March to 30 April. [89900]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Eighty two resolutions and 13 decisions were adopted at the 55th session. A full list is available in the Library of the House and on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' internet website.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the members of the United Kingdom delegation to the 55th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. [89901]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The 55th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights was attended by the late Derek Fatchett, who made a national statement in plenary on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  The United Kingdom delegation was headed by Audrey Glover CMG. She was supported by a team of officials from the United Kingdom Permanent Missions in Geneva and New York, and received additional support from London.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the issues of substance concerning the death penalty discussed under Item 17 at the 55th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights; what position was argued by the United Kingdom; what issues were put to the vote; what were the voting figures; and which way the United Kingdom voted on each occasion. [89902]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK co-sponsored an EU resolution calling on all States to abolish the death penalty and, where it is retained, to observe minimum international safeguards. The resolution, the text of which is available on the website of the office of the UN Commission on Human Rights, was adopted by 30 votes in favour, with 11 against and 12 abstentions. A paragraph vote tabled with the aim of weakening the text was defeated.
  597
  The UK also co-financed with Germany a panel discussion on the death penalty, with expert participants from the Council of Europe, International Commission of Jurists, Russia, Egypt, Pakistan, UK, USA and Trinidad and Tobago.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues were raised by the United Kingdom on the concept and practice of affirmative action under Item 16 at the 55th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights; what resolutions were moved by the United Kingdom; and what was the result. [89903]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom sponsored a decision entitled "The concept and practice of affirmative action", under agenda item 16 at the 55th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The decision endorses the appointment of a Special Rapporteur to undertake a study on the subject of affirmative action. It was adopted by consensus by the Commission. There were no resolutions on this topic under this agenda item.

  Human Rights Project Fund
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects, with the amounts of grant being paid in each case, being supported by the Human Rights Project Fund in(a) Armenia, (b) Azerbaijan, (c) Georgia, (d) Kazakhstan, (e) Kyrgyzstan, (f) Tajikistan, (g) Turkmenistan and (h) Uzbekistan. [89898]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Human Rights Project Fund supported six projects in Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in 1998–99. Details are set out in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), 11 May 1999,Official Report, column 110. In the present financial year no projects in any of the countries referred to in the question have, as yet, been funded by the Human Rights Project Fund.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Safety
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when regulations will be made to give effect to the Government's decision to take the necessary steps to meet the concerns expressed by the European Commission about the United Kingdom's implementation of the general fire safety provisions of the European Council framework directive, as set out in his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) of 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 255; and if he will make a statement. [90697]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have laid before Parliament Regulations to amend the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 to the necessary extent to address the Commission's concerns about meeting the terms of the directive in full. The Regulations, as amended, apply throughout Great Britain. A regulatory impact assessment is attached to the Regulations showing that the estimated costs to employers attributable to these Regulations is expected to be between £2.3 million and £28.2 million. I am satisfied that the balance between cost and benefit is 598
  the right one in the circumstances. Copies of the Regulations and the regulatory impact assessment are in the Library.

  There are two main changes to the 1997 Regulations. First, the deletion of most of the exceptions from the application provisions of these Regulations (among them, one for fire certificated premises) to meet the Commission's concerns. Second, in the light of the views expressed in response to the public consultation exercise we conducted, we have also taken this opportunity, for reasons of consistency, to provide the Regulations with a criminal sanctions only regime that is in line with existing fire safety and health and safety legislation. The Regulations, in their amended form, come into force on 1 December 1999. This, we hope, will give everyone sufficient time to prepare for their introduction.

  We expect to publish fresh guidance for employers on 22 July to help them to meet their fire safety responsibilities in the workplace. To complete the picture, new guidance on the enforcement provisions and other requirements of the amended Regulations will be issued to fire authorities this autumn, after consultation of interested parties.

  Domestic Violence
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward proposals for a new legal definition of domestic violence. [90110]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is currently no legal definition of domestic violence, since domestic violence is not a specific offence. The Government have no plans to change this situation.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary recently introduced a new definition for use by police forces in their returns of incidents reported. This is purely for the purposes of national statistics, to ensure that data obtained are more precise, consistent and comparable. It is not designed to change operational practice or to prevent police forces or other agencies from using other definitions if they consider that helpful locally.

  Rape
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the definition of belief on the part of defendants in rape cases. [90241]

  Mr. Boateng
  This will form part of the consideration of the law by the Sex Offences Review.

  Security Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 568, on the Security Service, if he will list the law enforcement agencies which could potentially task the Security Service with respect to serious crime. [89655]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service Act 1996 does not define the meaning of "law enforcement agencies" for the purpose of the Act.
  599
  However, I would regard a law enforcement agency for these purposes (and having regard to the serious crime provision in section 1(4) of the 1989 Act) as being a public body or government department whose functions include investigation of serious crime.

  In practice, the Security Service will generally be acting in support of the following law enforcement agencies:

  National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS)

  National Crime Squad

  Police forces

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  However, as the then Government made clear in the debate on the Security Service Act 1996, other agencies, including the Serious Fraud Office, the Immigration Service and the Inland Revenue, could also receive support from the Security Service.

  All requests for Security Service assistance to law enforcement agencies in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime are co-ordinated through the NCIS in accordance with arrangements formally agreed between the Director General of NCIS and the Security Service.

  Departmental Modernisation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the(a) consultancies, (b) companies and (c) project managers involved in the computerisation and modernisation of (i) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and (ii) the Passport Agency; [89924]

  (2) if he will list the companies that are or have been responsible for (a) consultancy and project management and (b) the supply of computer hardware and software in relation to the information technology programmes which are currently being planned and implemented in (i) the Passport Agency, (ii) the Immigration and Nationality

  Contractor

  Awarded

  Casework Programme

  Siemens Business Services

  July 1996

  Home Office Information Technology Service

  Sema Group

  November 1994

  Government Catalorue

  EDS

  1April 1996

  Suspect Index development and support contract

  ICL

  December 1992

  Home Office Unix Systems Environment

  BULL and ICL

  October 1992

  Impact/Rosplan (ports resource planning)

  BAA

  March 1997

  By Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders received a caution plus in 1998–99 in each police authority area in England. [89922]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on caution plus schemes is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time accused young offenders spend between being charged by the police and first appearing in court in each police authority area in England. [90051]
  600
  Directorate and (iii) the Immigration Service; and, in each case, what penalties are included in their contracts for failure to deliver to cost, on time and to standard; [89886]

  (3) if he will list the information technology programmes that have been planned and those which are currently being implemented to update (a) the Passport Agency, (b) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and (c) the Immigration Service, indicating in each case (i) their purpose, (ii) what stages of implementation have been planned and (iii) when it is expected to be fully implemented; [89885]

  (4) if he will list (a) the payments received and (b) those currently being negotiated in respect of the failure of companies to fulfil their contracts in respect of the computerisation of the (i) Immigration and Nationality Directorate and (ii) the Passport Agency since 1990; [89887]

  (5) if he will make a statement regarding the compatibility of the software and data handling systems currently being implemented in (a) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and (b) the Passport Agency; [89884]

  (6) if he will place in the Library copies of all documents relating to the computerisation of (a) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, (b) the Document Reception Centre, (c) the Public Inquiry Office, (d) the casework programme and (e) the Passport Agency, listing those pages which have been withheld, giving the reason in each case. [89883]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In view of the detail sought, I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts awarded in relation to computerisation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, indicating in each case to whom it was awarded and on what date. [89881]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The following contracts are currently used for major computer developments in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  Mr. Boateng
  The exact information requested is not available. Information on the duration of criminal cases is available from the magistrates courts Time Intervals Survey which is carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The latest available results refer to 1998 when the survey collected information on cases completed in magistrates courts in one week of each of February, June and October. The date of first appearance in court is not collected by the survey but the date of first listing–which is the same as first appearance when the defendant appears at first listing—is collected. The 1998 surveys do not specifically distinguish between adult and youth
  601
  defendants, but do differentiate whether a case was completed in a Youth Court or an Adult Court, and the answer is supplied on that basis.

  The table shows the average time from charge to first listing for defendants in indictable cases in the Youth Court by police authority area in England, and for England as a whole, in 1998.

  Average number of days from charge to first listing for charged defendants in indictable cases in the Youth court, 19991,2,3

  Police authority area

  Average number of days from charge to first listing

  Number of defendants (sample size)

  Avon and Somerset

  23

  50

  Bedfordshire

  23

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  30

  44

  Cheshire

  33

  52

  City of London 4

  n/a

  n/a

  Cleveland

  25

  75

  Cumbria

  29

  34

  Derbyshire

  33

  47

  Devon and Cornwall

  27

  31

  Dorset

  22

  17

  Durham

  25

  86

  Essex 5

  33

  74

  Gloucestershire

  29

  31

  Greater Manchester

  26

  228

  Hampshire

  20

  100

  Hertfordshire5

  37

  49

  Humberside

  19

  75

  Kent

  27

  82

  Lancashire

  25

  165

  Leicestershire

  28

  56

  Lincolnshire

  28

  20

  Merseyside

  23

  109

  Metropolitan 4,5

  29

  478

  Norfolk

  25

  49

  North Yorkshire

  21

  32

  Northamptonshire

  33

  19

  Northumbria

  27

  229

  Nottinghamshire

  28

  107

  South Yorkshire

  27

  99

  Staffordshire

  25

  111

  Suffolk

  33

  30

  Surrey 5

  37

  30

  Sussex

  35

  30

  Thames Valley

  27

  98

  Warwickshire

  22

  78

  West Mercia

  26

  49

  West Midlands

  27

  139

  West Yorkshire

  28

  186

  Wiltshire

  39

  27

  England

  27

  3,237

  1Excludes defendants summoned to court (i.e. rather than charged).

  2Defendants for whom the offence to charge time was over 10 years, or where the time from charge to first listing or first listing to completion was over 1 year, are excluded from the analysis.

  3 Small sample sizes mean that figures are subject to greater sampling error. Results based on a sample size of less than 100 should be interpreted with particular caution.

  4Youths charged by the City of London police are normally dealt with at an Inner London Youth Court and are included in results for the Metropolitan Police Authority area.

  5The Metropolitan Police Authority covers parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. Defendants charged by the Metropolitan Police but whose case was completed in a magistrates court in Essex, Hertfordshire or Surrey are included in the results for these police authority areas.

  Source:

  Lord Chancellor's Department Time Intervals Survey

  Refugees (Balkans)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees from(a) Bosnia and (b) Kosovo have arrived in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years. [90049]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. This relates to people who have applied for asylum and is a separate measure from those who arrived in the United Kingdom under the recent humanitarian and medical evacuation programme. Under those programmes, 4,380 Kosovars have arrived in the United Kingdom. A number of these may subsequently apply for asylum and thus be included in the tables. In addition, 2,736 arrived under earlier programmes announced from 1992 and 1995. I regret that, prior to 1996, statistics for the former Yugoslavia were not recorded under the individual states. It is also not possible separately to identify Kosovars within the available statistics for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Asylum application 1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1996 to 1999 2 for nationals of Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Year

  Bosnia

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  1996

  245

  400

  1997

  170

  1,865

  1998

  160

  7,395

  1999

  50

  3,455

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2January to May

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 19 March, 22 April and 27 May with regard to Mr. Kochi Ahmed, husband of Mrs. S. Khan, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. [89959]

  Mr. Straw
  I replied to my right hon. Friend's letters on 6 July.

  Rohypnol
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of crimes involving Rohypnol in the last year; and what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to raise public awareness on this issue. [89941]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We understand that in 1998, the Forensic Science Service screened 139 samples in rape cases for flunitrazepam (Rohypnol) with no positive results. Up until 20 May this year, 45 samples had been screened in rape cases also with no positive results.

  The Home Office has recently given a police research award to two Metropolitan police officers for a research project which aims to establish the extent of drug assisted sexual offences in the United Kingdom. They are expected to report in April 2000. We will await the results of the study before making a decision on whether and how to further raise public awareness on the issue or take any further action.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has received on the compatibility of the prosecution for bearing false documents of asylum seekers in transit with Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugees. [89717]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The details of the advice I receive from my officials are confidential, but I am advised that prosecution in these circumstances is not necessarily incompatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 31. However, a decision about whether or not to prosecute in a particular case is entirely a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Palace of Westminster (Demonstrations)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for(a) permitting and (b) policing demonstrations in the neighbourhood of the Palace of Westminster; who is responsible for issuing such permission; and on what authority. [89830]

  Kate Hoey
  Police permission is not required for people to assemble and protest peacefully. Marches or processions must be notified to the police. Under the Public Order Act 1986, the police have powers to impose conditions if it is necessary to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property, or serious disruption to the life of the community or intimidation. The Commissioners of Police, in both the City and Metropolitan police areas may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make an order prohibiting the holding of processions for a specified period within their police areas.

  In most cases, organisers contact the police who will advise on how the protest should be held without causing obstruction, breach of the peace or contravening any other legislation. Inevitably, there are cases where the numbers attending a demonstration will cause some obstruction and arrangements are made which endeavour to strike the correct balance between the rights of the protesters and those people going about their day to day business.

  The policing of demonstrations in the neighbourhood of the Palace of Westminster is undertaken by the Charing Cross Division of the Metropolitan police with due regard to various legislation including the Public Order Act 1986, the Highways Act 1835, Common Law and the Sessional Orders.

  Under Section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and Sessional Orders, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police instructs all constables of the Metropolitan police to facilitate free passage to and from the Palace of Westminster on any day when Parliament is sitting. In carrying out this duty, no march will be authorised where there is any possibility of interference with Members travelling to or from the Houses of Parliament.

  Race Relations Forum
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings the Race Relations Forum has held since its formation; what priorities and targets the Forum has adopted; what representations the 604
  Forum has made to which departments of Government; what changes have been made to the membership of the Forum; what procedures are in place for the appointment of new members of the Forum; and what measures the Forum has taken to secure representations from the Irish community. [89904]

  Mr. Straw
  The Forum has met four times: on 23 June, 14 October 1998, 9 March and 28–29 June 1999. The Forum has discussed race issues in the Home Office and its services with me and the Permanent Secretary; in the armed forces with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence; and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in his areas of responsibility. It also had a presentation from two of the Advisers to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and discussed how the Report's recommendations might be implemented. At its last meeting, it considered the development of a race equality strategy across government.

  There have been three changes in membership. Pauline Schofield, Project Co-ordinator of the Birmingham Irish Community Forum, has replaced Gobnait Ni Chrualaoi, who resigned as the representative of the Irish community. Sukhvinder Kaur Stubbs, Chief Executive of the Runnymede Trust and a Member of the Department for Education and Employment Advisory Group on Raising Awareness of Ethnic Minority Pupils, and Gloria Mills, Director of Equal Opportunities at UNISON, have joined the Forum. Appointments are made on the basis of recommendations from a selection panel comprising the Head of the Race Equality Unit, my Race Relations Adviser and an independent, academic member.

  Family Court Welfare Officers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in reviewing the future arrangements for the Family Court Welfare Officer Service; what plans he has to amalgamate their Service with that of the guardians ad litem; when such changes will be made; and if he will make a statement. [90077]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  Ministers and officials have been considering the key issues arising from last year's inter-departmental consultation paper on the future organisation of court welfare services. Discussions are proceeding and a decision is expected shortly.

TREASURY

  Single-earner Couples
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reintroduce the option of joint tax assessment for married couples, with particular reference to single-earner couples. [89895]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. The Government believe that the measures announced in the Chancellor's Budgets-such as the lop starting rate of tax, National Insurance Contributions reform, the introduction of the children's tax credit—provide a better deal for people in work and for families.

  Income Tax
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate inquiries into the delays involved in issuing the CIS5 and CIS6 certificates to industrial and commercial firms; and if he will take steps to ensure that the relevant certificate will be issued to Messrs EK Mechanical Services of 97 West Road, Westcliff on Sea, Essex, by the Inland Revenue before 1 August. [90184]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue is taking all possible steps to issue CIS5 and CIS6 certificates as rapidly as possible to all applicants who qualify for them. The majority of those applicants have already been issued with the relevant certificate. The balance will be issued as soon as possible, bearing in mind that the new scheme begins on 1 August.

  It would not he proper to disclose publicly whether an individual taxpayer has received or will receive a certificate, since that would involve disclosure of his or her personal tax affairs. I will write to the hon. Member specifically on his constituent.

  Departmental Joint Working
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to improve joint working between his departments. [90735]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A number of Government departments—not only ones reporting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—will be working on a pilot project to test different ways in which Government departments can work together more closely. The focus for this pilot will be the fashion industry in London. The aim of the pilot is to improve services to business through joint working (eg combined visits and trader education) to help traders understand what they need to do to meet legislative requirements. The pilot will also be looking to identify ways of raising compliance and reducing fraud and creating a level playing field for business so that legitimate business can thrive.

  Road Fuels (Northern Ireland)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the loss of revenue from cross-border shopping and smuggling of road fuels, petrol and diesel from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. [90736]

  Ms Hewitt
  Customs and Excise has provisionally assessed the combined loss from cross-border shopping and smuggling to be of the order of £100 million per annum.

  International Financial Crises
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the United Kingdom's position as regards the responsibility of the private sector in the response to international financial crises. [87881]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are working with our G7 partners to shape expectations so that private-sector creditors know that they will be expected to bear the consequences of the risks they take. There are several ways in which this can be achieved. First, there needs to be a greater use of 606
  market-based tools to involve the private sector in forestalling and managing crises, for example through a broader use of collective action clauses in sovereign debt contracts. Second, efforts should be made to ensure there is better communication and co-operation between emerging market countries and their creditors. Third, the G7 countries have agreed that a broad framework for involving the private sector in crisis resolution should be drawn up, which sets out in advance principles, considerations and a broad range of tools.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the reassessment of the objectives of IMF policy in responding to financial crises. [87880]

  Ms Hewitt
  At last week's summit in Cologne, G7 leaders announced a six-point plan for strengthening the international financial system. This included measures to increase the effectiveness of the IMF and the other international financial institutions; proposals to promote transparency and best practice, with the IMF monitoring compliance with new codes and standards; a new framework for involving the private sector in crisis prevention and management; steps to strengthen financial regulation in industrialized countries, and macroeconomic policies and financial systems in emerging markets where the IMF will work with the World Bank in providing advice and assistance; and promoting social policies to protect the poor and most vulnerable to ensure that they are better protected from the burden of adjustment at times of crisis.

  Taken together these recommendations represent a significant strengthening of the international financial system which will help reduce the risk of financial crises and make it easier for the international financial community, especially the IMF, to manage future crises effectively. We are working closely with the IMF to see that these initiatives and reforms are implemented successfully.

  Climate Change Levy
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the effect on the balance of payments of the impact which the climate change levy will have on the chemical and steel industries in the 10 years after its introduction; [88104]

  (2) what action he proposes to take to ensure that manufacturing industry remains competitive after the introduction of the climate change levy; and if he will make a statement; [88106]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect the introduction of the climate change levy will have on inward investment in each sector of industry; and if he will make a statement; [88113]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of the climate change levy on energy-intensive industry on (a) direct and (b) indirect employment in that industry over the next five years; and if he will make a statement; [88010]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of the climate change levy on global carbon dioxide emissions caused by industry relocating to countries with less stringent environmental legislation; and if he will make a statement; [88064]
  607
  (6) what assessment he has made of the scope for other European Union countries to introduce the climate change levy at rates which are low but consistent with them achieving their Kyoto commitment; and if he will make a statement; [88114]

  (7) on what basis the calculation of the revenue generated from the introduction of climate change levy was made; and if he will make a statement; [88199]

  (8) if he will publish his targets in terms of income from national insurance contributions and allowances for energy efficiency agreements on an industry by industry basis; and if he will make a statement; [88225]

  (9) what estimate he has made of the net financial impact on the Government following the introduction of the climate change levy, in terms of the reduction of national insurance contributions for (a) central Government employees and (b) local government and public services employees; and if he will make a statement; [88322]

  (10) what assessment he has made of the advantages of basing the climate change levy on the amount of carbon dioxide released; and if he will make a statement; [88387]

  (11) if he will assess the (a) benefits and (b) disadvantages of applying the climate change levy to domestic consumers; and if he will make a statement. [88323]

  Ms Hewitt
  The climate change levy is estimated to save around 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010, thereby making a very significant contribution to meeting the Government's legally-binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the Kyoto Protocol, and its domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010.

  The climate change levy will entail no increase in the overall burden of tax on business as the revenue will be fully recycled via a 0.5 percentage point cut in employer National Insurance Contributions. Business will also benefit from an additional £50m for schemes aimed at promoting energy efficiency and support for renewable sources of energy, like solar and wind power.

  Following Lord Marshall's recommendations, and the Government's Statement of Intent on Environmental Taxation, the Government recognise the need for special consideration to be given to energy intensive industries given their energy usage and exposure to international competition. Consequently, significantly lower rates of tax will be set for those energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving their energy efficiency. A number of sectors including the aluminium, iron and steel, and chemicals sectors are currently involved in those negotiations. The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in National Insurance contributions on individual sectors will depend on the rates at which the levy is set. The final rates of the levy will not be set until Finance Bill 2000.

  The Government are keen to work with business on the detailed design and administration issues relating to the levy. HM Customs and Excise have just completed a further round of consultation on these issues and the Government are assessing these responses alongside other representations in deciding how to design the levy to maximise the environmental benefits whilst safeguarding competitiveness.
  608
  As the Government's climate change consultation document makes clear, all sectors of the economy will need to play their part in tackling the problem of climate change. It is not the Government's intention to introduce new taxes on domestic fuel and power, for social policy reasons. However, there are a number of measures in place to encourage energy efficiency in households, including the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. These measures are set out in the climate change consultation document and will form part of the climate change strategy to be published later this year.

  The UK is not alone in having to meet targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or in using economic instruments to do so. Since 1990, seven EU countries have introduced explicit taxes on the carbon or energy content of fuels, including most recently, the Tco-Tax' introduced by the German government. On current projections, most OECD countries will have to introduce new measures of one form or another to meet their Kyoto obligations.

  Gold
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make extra provision for debt relief in the highly indebted poor countries whose export revenues and central bank reserves have been affected by falls in the gold price. [88824]

  Ms Hewitt
  Decisions on the level of reduction in Heavily Indebted Poor Countries' debt burdens needed to achieve debt sustainability take account of economic variables, including the level of exports.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings of the JCC he has attended. [89279]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Prime Minister on 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 362.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list from the JUVOS database for each region of the United Kingdom the proportion of all those who left the claimant count for jobs who left after(a) less than six months claiming jobseeker's allowance, (b) six to 12 months claiming jobseeker's allowance, (c) 12 to 24 months claiming jobseeker's allowance and (d) more than 24 months claiming jobseeker's allowance during (i) April 1997 to April 1998 and (ii) April 1998 to April 1999. [89370]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 8 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on those leaving the claimant count for jobs.
  The attached tables give the information requested in respect of those claimants whose destination is known.
  609

  Claimants leaving the claimant count 10 April 1997 to 8 April 1998 who are known to have found work by duration of claim

  Duration of claim (months)

  Government office region

  0–6

  >6–12

  >12–24

  >24

  All durations percentage

  North East

  78.6

  11.1

  5.9

  4.4

  100

  North West

  79.9

  11.0

  5.7

  3.4

  100

  Merseyside

  72.6

  12.7

  8.3

  6.4

  100

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  78.5

  11.3

  6.1

  4.0

  100

  East Midlands

  78.6

  11.1

  6.0

  4.3

  100

  West Midlands

  76.9

  11.7

  6.4

  5.0

  100

  Eastern

  77.4

  11.8

  6.3

  4.6

  100

  London

  68.0

  13.9

  9.2

  8.9

  100

  South East

  77.9

  11.2

  6.1

  4.8

  100

  South West

  79.0

  10.8

  5.9

  4.3

  100

  Wales

  78.0

  11.6

  6.5

  3.9

  100

  Scotland

  80.2

  11.2

  5.5

  3.0

  100

  Northern Ireland

  73.9

  11.1

  7.0

  8.0

  100

  Claimants leaving the claimant count 9 April 1998–7 April 1999 who are known to have found work by duration of claim

  Duration of claim (months)

  Government office region

  >6–12

  >6–12

  >12–24

  >24

  All durations percentage

  North East

  82.7

  10.5

  4.4

  2.4

  100

  North West

  83.6

  10.7

  4.0

  1.7

  100

  Merseyside

  76.3

  13.3

  6.4

  4.0

  100

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  80.0

  11.1

  4.7

  2.2

  100

  East Midlands

  83.8

  10.5

  4.0

  1.7

  100

  West Midlands

  81.1

  11.3

  5.1

  2.5

  100

  Eastern

  82.1

  11.0

  4.4

  2.5

  100

  London

  73.1

  14.8

  7.5

  4.5

  100

  South East

  82.9

  10.5

  4.3

  2.2

  100

  South West

  83.5

  10.6

  3.9

  2.0

  100

  Wales

  82.1

  11.1

  4.5

  2.2

  100

  Scotland

  83.2

  11.0

  4.2

  1.6

  100

  Northern Ireland

  76.5

  11.7

  5.9

  5.8

  100

  ISAs
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what research he has commissioned to gauge the take-up of ISAs among new investors; [R] [89321]

  (2) how many investors have so far taken out mini or maxi ISA schemes who previously did not have (a) PEPs or (b) TESSAs. [R] [89702]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answers 1 and 5 July 1999]: Information on the extent to which ISA investors hold PEPs or TESSAs will be identifiable from the annual returns provided to the Inland Revenue by PEP and ISA managers and TESSA operators after the end of each year.

  We keep all aspects of tax policy under review, and commission research where necessary to supplement available data. For example, HM Treasury has commissioned ongoing research on the ISA market from McKinsey & Company, Inc., which will collect data from providers on take-up of ISAs by component, broken down between those accounts meeting the CAT standards and those not.

  Euro (EC Seminars)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to his answer of 24 June 1999,Official Report, column 423–24, on the Euro (EC Seminars), at which vulnerable sectors of the population The Prince Programme was targeted. [89826]
  610
  Ms Hewitt
  The Prince Programme covers an information campaign called the "Euro". This includes a series of projects, with the objective of facilitating the changeover to the euro among vulnerable sectors of the population. Vulnerable sectors covered are those in economic and social difficulty, the elderly, visually impaired, hard of hearing and those with learning difficulties.

  Market Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the title and purpose of each item of market and opinion research commissioned by or through his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, stating in each case whether the results were published. [89697]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: I regret that this information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Divorce Statistics
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his most recent estimate of the number of marriages which ended in divorce in the last year for which figures are available. [90327]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  611
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 8 July 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the number of marriages estimated to end in divorce.
  The table below gives the numbers of marriages which took place in England and Wales in a selection of past years, and the numbers and percentages of those marriages which had ended in divorce by 1994. Also given are the percentages of those marriages estimated to have ended in divorce by the tenth wedding anniversary.

  Numbers and percentages of marriages which ended in divorce,

  by year of marriage, England and Wales

  Marriages which endedin divorce by the end of 1994

  Year of marriage

  Number of marriages (thousand)

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage1

  Percentage of marriages which ended in divorce by tenth wedding anniversary

  1951

  361

  246

  213

  23

  1961

  347

  81

  23

  6

  1971

  405

  119

  29

  15

  1981

  352

  95

  27

  21

  1986

  348

  69

  20

  223

  1991

  307

  18

  6

  —

  1Percentage of original number of marriages

  2Estimates

  In addition, an estimate has been made of the percentage of marriages which would end in divorce were the divorce rates by duration of marriage to remain unchanged at their 1993-94 levels. On this basis, 41 per cent. of marriages would ultimately end in divorce.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ireland/UK Co-operation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in co-operation between Ireland and the United Kingdom in developing east-west relations since publication of the progress report issued on the margins of the European Council Meeting in Luxembourg on 12 December 1997; on what dates the Joint Steering Group co-chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach and the Cabinet Office has met in 1998 and in 1999 to date; if he will list those documents agreed by the Joint Steering Group; and if he will place a copy of each in the Library. [89899]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  There has been close and effective co-operation between the two Governments since the Luxembourg Council, and officials and Ministers of both Governments have continued to take forward the programme of work outlined in the Joint Report of 12 December 1997, with frequent ministerial visits in both directions. There was further evidence of the closeness of the relationship when the Prime Minister accepted an invitation from the Taoiseach to address the Irish Parliament on 26 November last year. Co-operation has also been manifested in the efforts of the two Governments to facilitate the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998 and its subsequent implementation. It has not been 612
  necessary for officials of the Department of Taoiseach and the Cabinet Office to meet specifically in order to coordinate this work. The Government look forward to strengthening that co-operation further when the British-Irish Council and the British Irish Intergovernmental Conference, established under the agreement come into operation.

WALES

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to reduce hospital waiting lists; and if he will make a statement. [89854]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Since April 1997, the Government have invested £58 million to help NHS Wales reduce waiting lists and cope with increased pressures from emergency medical admissions during the winter months. An additional £19 million per year has been made available recurrently from 1999–2000.

  Between March 1997 and March 1999 in-patient and day case waiting list figures fell from 67,609 to 65,315, following a peak of 76,016 in August 1998.

  Since then, in-patient and day case waiting list figures have increased and stood at 67,732 at the end of May 1999.

  Bringing waiting lists down remains a priority for the Government.

  Following the transfer of functions on 1 July 1999, waiting lists are now a matter for the National Assembly for Wales to address.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the(a) cost of and (b) numbers affected by amending the law to ensure entitlement to Incapacity Benefit is reliant on a requisite record of past National Insurance contributions in (i) one of the last three complete tax years, (ii) one of the last four complete tax years, (iii) one of the last five complete tax years, (iv) one of the last six complete tax years and (v) one of the last seven complete tax years. [89714]

  Mr. Bayley
  Under current legislation entitlement to Incapacity Benefit depends on a minimum number of National Insurance contributions having been paid in only one tax year. The table shows the benefit savings and numbers affected in the first, third and tenth years of requiring the same amount of contributions to have been paid in one of the last three, four, five, six and seven years. Only about 30 per cent. of those affected would have a cash loss. In 70 per cent. of cases Income Support would fully compensate for loss of entitlement to Incapacity Benefit.
  613

  Savings Year 1 £ million

  Number affected Year 1

  Savings Year 3 £ million

  Number affected Year 3

  Savings Year 10 £

  Number affected Year 10

  Tax years over which contributions must be paid

  1 in 3

  20

  25,000

  55

  55,000

  115

  110,000

  1 in 4

  15

  15,000

  35

  40,000

  80

  80,000

  1 in 5

  10

  15,000

  30

  30,000

  60

  60,000

  1 in 6

  10

  10,000

  20

  20,000

  45

  45,000

  1 in 7

  5

  5,000

  15

  15,000

  35

  35,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. All figures are in April 1998 benefit rates. Savings figures quoted are net benefit expenditure savings.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the net saving to public expenditure of raising the state pension age to(a) 66 and (b) 67 years from 2039. [90188]

  Mr. Timms
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioner benefit units claiming Income Support, where the head of household is over 80 years, receive(a) at least one full basic state pension and (b) some payment of basic state pension. [90189]

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

  The proportion of claimants aged over 80 in receipt of Income Support and retirement pension

  Pensioners

  Number

  Total Income Support claimants over 80

  593,000

  Percentage receiving a full basic State pension

  87.7

  Percentage receiving an element of the basic State pension

  8.8

  Percentage not in receipt of any basic State pension

  3.6

  Number of primary benefit recipients where marital breakdown is available

  Income Support(February 1999)

  Jobseeker's Allowance(November 1998) 1

  Family Credit (February 1999)

  Disability Working Allowance (January 1999)2

  Married men with children3

  163,000

  138,000

  298,000

  3,743

  Married women with children3

  36,000

  8,000

  90,000

  582

  Single men with children3

  59,000

  4,000

  16,000

  217

  Single women with children3

  977,000

  10,000

  385,000

  1,991

  Single men less than 65

  626,000

  683,000

  16,000

  4,776

  Single women less than 60

  1,367,000

  227,000

  385,000

  5,558

  Married male pensioners4

  126,000

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  Married female pensioners4

  19,000

  n/a

  n/a

  15

  Single male pensioners4

  205,000

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  Single female pensioners4

  1,083,000

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  1All Jobseeker's Allowance cases are shown and may therefore include some cases where nil benefit is in payment but the claimant signs for National Insurance Contributions only.

  2Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand except Disability Working Allowance where exact figures have been provided.

  3Dependent children are defined as aged 0–18 years.

  4Pensioners are defined as men aged 65 and over, and women aged 60 and over.

  Notes:

  1. Primary benefit recipients have been interpreted as being the benefit claimant.

  2. Family Credit figures reflects the gender of the main earner when in practice the primary recipient is normally the female.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1999

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, November 1998

  3. Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of all awards as at February 1999

  4. Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. count of claims as at January 1999
  614
  Notes:

  1. The table shows information relating to the type of pension received by the claimant only, rather than the benefit unit. Of the claimants aged over 80, 31,000 have partners of pension age, of whom 30,000 are receiving some State pension. Information on the type of pension in payment to a partner cannot be included in the table, as the sampling methods used to obtain this information relate to individual pensioners, not benefit units.

  2. Estimates of the number of Income Support claimants aged over 80 years, and the number of partners, are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Estimates of Income Support and State Pension caseloads are based on a 5 per cent. sample size, and are therefore subject to a degree of error.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry February 1999

  2. Pensions Strategy Computer System January 1999

  Primary Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the most recent available date the number of primary benefit recipients who are(a) married men with dependent children, (b) married women with dependent children, (c) single men with dependent children, (d) single women with dependent children, (e) single men under pension age, (f) single women under pension age, (g) married male pensioners, (h) married female pensioners, (i) single male pensioners and (j) single female pensioners, broken down for each benefit. [90323]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  615

  Number of primary benefit recipients where marital breakdown is not available

  Retirement Pension1

  Widow's Benefit1

  Incapacity Benefit2

  Severe Disablement Allowance2

  Attendance Allowance3

  Disability Living Allowance3

  Men with dependent children

  15,500

  n/a

  85,480

  2,360

  n/a

  n/a

  Women with dependent children

  3,900

  46,700

  20,220

  4,000

  n/a

  n/a

  Men under pension age

  n/a

  n/a

  1,035,020

  145,940

  n/a

  817,700

  Women under pension age

  n/a

  234,900

  488,080

  183,640

  n/a

  635,200

  Men over pension age

  3,961,100

  n/a

  58,220

  6,100

  347,900

  217,100

  Women over pension age

  6,905,500

  n/a

  18,140

  34,640

  884,100

  372,300

  1Figures as at 31 March 1999 based on a 5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System, including people resident overseas.

  2Figures as at 30 November 1998 based on a 5 per cent. sample.from the PSCS Incapacity system, and may exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  3Figures as at 28 November 1999 based on a 5 per cent. sample.

  Recipients of council tax benefit by status, pensioner status and dependent children, for GB, May 1998 where there is no available gender breakdown

  With dependent children1

  Non-pensioners2

  Pensioners2

  Recipients with partner

  473,000

  657,000

  681,000

  Single recipients

  1,033,000

  2,057,000

  1,930,000

  Total recipients

  1,506,000

  2,714,000

  2,611,000

  1 Recipients with dependent children could be pensioners or non-pensioners, similarly, pensioners or non-pensioners may have dependent children.

  2 'Pensioner' status has been determined by those in receipt of any of the pensioner premiums, and therefore non-pensioners or are those not in receipt of a pensioner premium.

  Note:

  The data is provisional and has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Management Information System 1 per cent. sample taken in May 1998

  Recipients of council tax benefit by status, pensioner status and dependent children, for GB, May 1998 where there is no available gender breakdown

  With dependent children1

  Non-pensioners2

  Pensioners2

  Recipients with partner

  398,000

  536,000

  394,000

  Single recipients

  1,015,000

  2,114,000

  1,431,000

  Total recipients

  1,413,000

  2,650,000

  2,825,000

  1 Recipients with dependent children could be pensioners or non-pensioners, similarly, pensioners or non-pensioners may have dependent children.

  2 'Pensioner' status has been determined by those in receipt of any of the pensioner premiums, and therefore non-pensioners or are those not in receipt of a pensioner premium.

  Note:

  The data is provisional and has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Management Information System 1 per cent. sample taken in May 1998

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has of the extent of income sharing within couples in receipt of means-tested benefits. [90322]
  616
  Angela Eagle
  We have commissioned a qualitative research study into the financial arrangements of couples on benefit, which should give us a better picture of the arrangements that couples make to manage their benefit income. The results of this study should be available later this year.

  The research study builds on a number of previous studies which have explored how resources are allocated within households. We have undertaken a comprehensive review of these studies which will be published in the Autumn.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce benefit splitting for means-tested benefits. [90321]

  Angela Eagle
  Current rules provide for benefit paid in respect of a family to be paid to the main claimant. However, there are provisions to allow the payment of all or part of the benefit to be paid to a third party, including the claimant's partner, where this is in the interests of the family; for example in cases where the claimant has difficulties in budgeting or suffers from alcohol or drug abuse. We have included provisions in the current Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill to allow these splitting arrangements to apply to hardship payments of Jobseeker' s Allowance, but we have no plans for any further extensions to these arrangements at present.

HEALTH

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to implement the joint recommendations of its Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser on population health surveillance in respect of genetically modified and other novel foods. [89055]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: A sub-group of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and other experts is already considering this issue. It has already held two open meetings and is planning to hold another shortly. It will publish proposals in due course.

  Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting to receive hospital treatment in Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust hospitals at(a) March 1996, (b) March 1997, (c) March 1998 and (d) March 1999. [89728]

  Mr. Denham
  The information available is given in the table.

  Number of patients waiting for elective admission in Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust hospitals

  Year

  Total waiting

  31 March 1996

  5,835

  31 March 1997

  8,391

  31 March 1998

  11,360

  31 March 1999

  9,967

  Note:

  The figures are hospital-based and include private patients as well as those funded by the NHS.

  Source:

  Form KH07—completed by the trust quarterly.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients on the hospital waiting lists of the Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust had waited for treatment in March of(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999, in excess of (i) three months, (ii) six months, (iii) nine months and (iv) 12 months. [89729]

  Mr. Denham
  The information available is given in the table.

  Number of people waiting for elective admission at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust by time on waiting list

  In excess of:

  Year

  3 months

  6 months

  9 months

  12 months

  31 March 1996

  2,804

  1,357

  475

  0

  31 March 1997

  4,035

  1,904

  732

  104

  31 March 1998

  6,813

  4,033

  2,108

  849

  31 March 1999

  6,043

  3,693

  2,191

  1,093

  Note:

  The figures are hospital-based and include private patients as well as those funded by the NHS

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients referred to a consultant within the area of Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust as at March in the years (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1999 had been waiting for their first appointment with a consultant in excess of(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) 12 months. [89730]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. Information on the number of people waiting for a first outpatient appointment following written referral by a general practitioner who had been waiting over 13 weeks and over 26 weeks at 31 March of each year, is given in the table.

  Information on time waited for all types of referral is not available centrally.

  Information is not collected in separate timebands for patients waiting over 9 months or over 12 months-they are included in the 26 weeks and over category.
  618

  The number of patients waiting at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust to see a consultant for first outpatient appointment following written referral from a GP

  Number waiting, by time waited

  Year

  13 weeks and over

  26 weeks and over

  31 March 1996

  971

  141

  31 March 1997

  555

  74

  31 March 1998

  1,317

  234

  31 March 1998

  2,422

  575

  Note:

  These figures are provider-based and include private patients as well as those funded by the NHS.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received elective surgery from Mid Essex Hospital Services Trust in the years commencing(a) April 1995, (b) April 1996, (c) April 1997 and April 1998. [89731]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. The nearest proxy "count" is for the number of admissions which will count an individual each time they are admitted to hospital. The information below is extracted from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) system. HES contains details of patients admitted to, and treated in NHS hospitals in England.

  Elective admissions followed by surgery in Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust in the following years:

  Year commencing

  Number of elective admissions followed by surgery

  April 1995

  20,023

  April 1996

  22,453

  April 1997

  21,161

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89989]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning within the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party Members of Parliament. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

  Smoking
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of smoking is among teenagers(a) overall and (b) in each region. [89569]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: The information available is given in the tables.
  619

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking among secondary school children aged 11 to 15, and adults aged 16 to 19 England 1996

  Percentage

  Age

  Males

  Females

  Persons

  11

  1

  0

  1

  12

  2

  4

  3

  13

  8

  11

  10

  14

  13

  24

  18

  15

  28

  33

  30

  All pupils aged 11–15

  11

  15

  13

  Adults aged 16–19

  25

  32

  29

  Base

  Pupils aged 11–15

  1,445

  1,409

  2,854

  Adults aged 16–19

  335

  345

  680

  Notes:

  1. Pupil cigarette smokers are those respondents who usually smoke one or more cigarettes a week

  2. Adult cigarette smokers are those respondents who said that they smoke cigarettes at all nowadays

  3. The data are rounded to the nearest whole figure

  Sources:

  1. ONS survey of smoking among secondary schoolchildren, 1996

  2. ONS General Household Survey 1996

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking among secondary school pupils aged 11 to 15, by region, 1996

  Percentage

  Region

  Prevalence

  Base

  North

  15

  885

  Midlands

  13

  732

  South

  10

  890

  Greater London

  13

  347

  Total

  13

  2,854

  Notes:

  1. Pupil cigarette smokers are those respondents who usually smoke one or more cigarettes a week

  2. Data are rounded to the nearest whole figure

  3. The sample is too small to provide valid data by regions for adults aged 16 to 19

  Source:

  ONS survey of smoking among secondary schoolchildren, 1996

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking among 16–19 year olds in Great Britain, by region, 1996

  Standard region

  Percentage smoking cigarettes

  Base

  North

  12

  56

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  26

  50

  North West

  31

  123

  East Midlands

  27

  52

  West Midlands

  19

  72

  East Anglia

  29

  38

  Greater London

  24

  78

  Outer Metropolitan Area

  38

  81

  Outer South East

  42

  60

  South West

  31

  70

  England

  29

  680

  Wales

  31

  52

  Scotland

  31

  77

  Great Britain

  29

  809

  Note

  The sample in each region for this age group is quite small

  Source:

  General Household Survey 1996

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the impact of smoking on the ageing of the skin. [89571]
  620
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 7 July 1999]: Although the Department has not sponsored specific research on this topic, recent published papers have concluded that smoking causes skin wrinkling that could make smokers appear prematurely old.

  Mental Health
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to amend the definition of nearest relative, in section 26 of the Mental Health Act 1983; [90187]

  (2) if he will bring forward amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide, for those people treated under section 131, (a) the right to a second opinion, (b) access to hospital managers' hearings and (c) access to mental health review tribunals; and if he will make a statement. [90185]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a 'root and branch' review of the Mental Health Act 1983 in July 1998. An expert committee was appointed to advise on the changes necessary, and they will shortly be making their recommendations to Ministers. The committee undertook a full consultation on a wide range of issues. Once the Government have received the expert committee's report, we will draw up final proposals for a new legislative framework and these will be subject to full formal consultation. New mental health legislation will be introduced as soon as it is appropriate to do so.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently being treated in psychiatric hospitals under section 131 of the Mental Health Act 1983. [90186]

  Mr. Hutton
  Section 131 of the Mental Health Act 1983 concerns informal admissions of patients. It is not a formal detention section. Information on informal admission of psychiatric patients is not available centrally.

SCOTLAND

  Refugees
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Scottish administration and Scottish local authorities about the implications of the Immigration and Asylum Bill for refugees in Scotland. [88592]

  Dr. Reid
  There have been regular consultations between my office, the Scottish Executive and local authorities about the implications of the Bill.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the JCC he has attended. [89272]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 362.

  Holyrood House
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many days in each year since 1992 the Palace of Holyrood House was occupied by(a) the Sovereign and (b) other members of the Royal Family. [89551]

  Dr. Reid
  Since 1992, the Palace of Holyrood House was occupied by(a) the Sovereign and (b) other members of the Royal family as follows:

  Year

  Sovereign

  Other members of the Royal Family

  1992

  6

  17

  1993

  6

  26

  1994

  11

  17

  1995

  7

  22

  1996

  6

  20

  1997

  10

  24

  1998

  5

  17

  1999

  13

  17

  1 Interim figure to July 1999

  In addition, the Lord High Commissioner, acting as the Sovereign's representative at the General Assembly, occupies the Palace generally for a week in May each year.

  From 1 July 1999, provision of the official residence of the Sovereign in Scotland became a matter for Scottish Ministers.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the running costs of the Secretary of State's Office for 1999–2000. [89857]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 412–13, about amending running costs provision for 1999–2000. The current provision was based on estimates made in January 1999. I have since been reviewing the role and functions of my Department after 1 July and I will make a further statement in due course.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Records Advisory Council
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will open meetings of the Advisory Council on Public Records to the public; and how many representations the Lord Chancellor has received on this matter since May 1997. [90058]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government's policy document "Quangos: opening the doors" stated that NDPBs, of which the Advisory Council on Public Records is one, should hold open meetings where practicable and appropriate. The Council is keen to conduct its business in as public a manner as possible. However, one of its main responsibilities is in respect of the 30-year rule. This involves the discussion of information which is invariably confidential and frequently has significant security and foreign relations implications. Notwithstanding this, the 622
  Council is prepared to consider any request for public access to its deliberations which would not interfere with the proper discharge of its functions.

  In accordance with this approach, the Council made arrangements for a particular part of its business to be televised last year. It would be prepared to make arrangements of a similar nature in future. The Council is anxious that the activities which it undertakes on behalf of the public are as widely publicised as possible.

  The Lord Chancellor has previously received no representations on this matter.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the response of the Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records to June 1997 petition from the census historians seeking the right to inspect 50-year-old decennial censuses of population for England and Wales; and if he will list the hon. Members who have made representations to the Lord Chancellor on this matter. [90059]

  Mr. Vaz
  A copy of the petition was sent to the chairman of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records by a Mr. Denis McCready on 14 June 1997. Mr. McCready had been in lengthy correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, his Department, the Council and the Public Record Office, and the Lord Chancellor had instructed his private secretary to write to him to say that further letters would receive no reply. The secretary of the Council replied to Mr. McCready's letter on 17 June to say that the chairman had decided not to put the matter to the Council since the closure of the census had already received very full consideration over the years and that the Lord Chancellor's instructions about further correspondence applied to the Council. The Lord Chancellor has received no representations from hon. Members on this matter.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Lindane
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the use of lindane for seed treatment; and if he will make a statement. [90837]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have now banned the use of lindane to treat seeds in England, Scotland and Wales. We have considered carefully the representations received as a result of our announcement of 18 June 1999,Official Report, columns 233–34, that we planned to implement in full the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. We understand that the decision will cause real difficulties to some companies and farmers but we have not received any further evidence to suggest that the risk to operators from treating seed with lindane was significantly less than that assessed by the Committee. I have therefore acted, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly to revoke the approvals for the use of lindane to treat seed as of July. Similar steps are being taken in Northern Ireland.
  623
  The Committee has advised that the risk to farmers from using lindane-treated seed is acceptably low. Farmers may also adopt other strategies to combat pests including other cereal seed treatments or crop sprays.

  Consumers may be reassured that other approved uses of lindane, which continue for the present, do not constitute an unacceptable risk to consumers.

  Cattle Disease
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department has provided to farmers on ways they can reduce the risk of diseases spreading to their cattle. [90838]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have published two leaflets on this issue today. The first, "Farm Biosecurity: Protecting Herd Health" covers general disease prevention and the second "TB in Cattle: Reducing the Risk" is aimed more specifically at reducing the threat of tuberculosis.

  This is an important area; through these leaflets we are aiming to raise farmers' awareness of the importance of good practice in reducing disease risk and the benefits it offers. These leaflets offer good advice that farmers throughout the country should follow.

  The leaflets will be given to cattle farmers by State Veterinary Service staff and Local Veterinary Inspectors during farm visits and are being made widely available through markets, the Farmers' Unions and local Agricultural Department offices.

  I have arranged for copies of both leaflets to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for consultation on the proposed level of fees for cattle passports. [90839]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Cattle Tracing System (CTS) was launched by the Government in September 1998. The system is run by a new organisation, the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS). The new system enables a full record to be kept of cattle and where they have been throughout their lives, helping the livestock industry to provide assurance to its customers.

  Since its launch and until 5 July 1999, 2,330,113 passports for cattle have been issued by BCMS, at an average rate of 11,650 per day. It is expected that between 2 and 3 million cattle passports will be issued annually. At the current time, 90 per cent. of passports are issued within 3 working days of an application being received. In addition, since last September, 1,446,993 movements of cattle have been recorded on the new system: and 221,506 calls from farmers have been handled by the BCMS call centre since it opened in July 1998.

  The Government announced in February 1998 that they would pay for setting up the Cattle Tracing System (CTS) and for running it during its first full year of operation. This represented a benefit of some £36 million to the livestock industry. The Government believe that as the main beneficiaries, the livestock industry should now take over the costs of running the CTS from 27 September
  624
  1999. In a consultation document issued today, interested organisations are being consulted on the level of charges, what they cover and the methods of payment.

  We propose that the fee should be £7 per cattle passport. This is in the lower half of the £5 to £10 range indicated in November 1997.

  This proposed fee does not include the cost of time spent checking the eartags and passports of animals handled by the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS). Instead it is proposed that the MHS should recover these costs directly from abattoirs. The cost to the abattoir sector is likely to be around £2 million per annum.

  The Government propose not to charge for temporary passports, known also as calf passports. Calves are less valuable than older animals. The passport fee will be payable however if a temporary passport is submitted for conversion to a full cattle passport.

  A copy of the consultation package, including a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment, are being placed in the Library of the House. Comments are sought by 9 August. There will be separate consultations by the administrations in Scotland and Wales, but it is expected that the fee will be at the same rate in all three countries of Great Britain.

  Biotechnology
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the consumer/environmental/ pressure groups with which his Department's Ministers or officials have held meetings since June 1998, indicating in how many of these meetings genetically modified organisms or biotechnology were discussed. [90922]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF Ministers and/or officials have had more than 360 meetings with the consumer/environmental/ pressure groups listed since June 1998. Genetically Modified Organisms/biotechnology were discussed during approximately 40 of these meetings.

  Game Conservancy Trust

  Scottish National Heritage

  World Wildlife Fund

  Organic Farms & Growers

  Organic Food Federation

  Marine Conservation Society

  Parnham Trust

  National Food Alliance

  Wildlife & Wetlands Trust

  Humane Slaughter Association

  Horror Out Of Farming

  Joint National Conservation Council

  Worcestershire Wildlife Trust

  Soil Association

  Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds

  National Trust

  British Deer Society

  Wildlife Trust

  Woodland Trust

  Butterfly Conservation Trust

  Linking Environment And Farming

  625

  SAFE Alliance

  British Trust For Ornithology

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Climate Action Network

  Plant Life

  National Conservation Council

  English Nature

  Consumers Association

  National Federation of Conservation Groups

  Croydon Conservation Group

  Consumers in Europe Group

  Womens' Institute

  Consultative Farm of Whaling

  Salmon & Trout Association

  Campaign for Protection of Shechita

  National Housewives Association

  Friends of the Earth

  Anaphylaxis Campaign

  Latex Allergy Support Group

  Welsh Consumers Council

  British Trust for Ornithology

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  UK Arctic Conservation Forum

  London Conservation Working Group

  Free Radicals

  Consumers International

  Pesticides Trust

  Townswomen Guild

  Cornish Guild of Smallholders

  Small Farms Association

  North Cornwall Smallholders

  Family Farmers Association

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Ramblers Association

  Devon Wildlife Trust

  Compassion in World Farming

  Gaia Foundation

  Wildlife & Countryside Link

  Scottish Consumers Council

  National Federation of Badgers Group

  Sherwood Forest Trust

  English Heritage

  Wildlife Trust

  Cotswold & Gloucestershire Farm Attraction Group

  Wiltshire Rural Forum

  Wiltshire Woodland Forum

  Great Western Community Forest

  Dorset Rural Forum

  The Rare Breeds Survival Trust

  Greenpeace

  Green Alliance

  Gene Watch

  Women's Environmental Network & Genetics Forum

  World Society for the Protection of Animals

  International Federation for Animal Welfare.

  Wild Boar
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of boar living in the wild in the United Kingdom. [89954]

  Mr. Meale
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are estimated to be around 100 wild boar living free on the borders of Kent and East Sussex, with between 12–20 in Dorset.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 17 June 1999, Official Report, columns 216–18, what is his Department's current appraisal of tonnage of discarding for gadoids, by type. [88607]

  Mr. Morley
  ICES estimated for 1997 that in the North Sea (ICES reporting areas Ha and IV) some 52,000 tonnes of haddock and 17,000 tonnes of whiting were discarded. Estimates made by CEFAS on a similar basis for cod indicate discards of between 31–35,000 tonnes. The majority of these would be undersized.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Deputy Prime Minister's oral answer of 30 June 1999, Official Report, column 339, what British police contribution has been provided for policing activities in Kosovo. [89931]

  The Prime Minister
  Prior to the commencement of hostilities, two officers from the Metropolitan police were working in Kosovo as observers. When the situation became unstable, they were immediately withdrawn to Macedonia.

  When NATO's military action ended, the Chief Prosecutor with the International War Crimes Tribunal made a request for assistance with the recovery of forensic evidence relating to alleged war crimes in Kosovo. The Metropolitan police were approached and agreed to send a team of officers who have specialist skills and knowledge. The team complement in Kosovo is 16, comprising forensic scientists, police officers and pathologists.

  In addition, the United Nations have requested 60 UK police officers for Kosovo. We have offered to provide these officers to recruit, to train and to monitor a civil police force for Kosovo. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office are currently discussing with the United Nations and the OSCE what specific roles these officers might undertake.

  Ministerial Code
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the Ministerial Code as recommended by the Committee on Standards and Privileges in its Eighth report of Session 1998–99 (HC 807). [89869]
  627
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 July 1999]: The Government welcome the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the premature disclosure of reports of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It offers guidance where none previously existed. I will review the wording of the Ministerial Code in the light of the Report. The Government will, of course, respond to the Committee's recommendations shortly.

  Cabinet Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will include the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Education and Employment on the Cabinet committee relating to defence and overseas policy. [90240]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers who are not members of the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy (DOP) are invited to attend its meetings as necessary, as is the case for any Cabinet Committee.

  Junior Doctors
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his Oral answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) of 7 July 1999, Official Report, column 1026, how many junior doctors were working beyond the 56 hour limit as at 31 March; what proportion of junior doctors this represents; and what percentage change this represents from the number so working in September 1998. [90801]

  The Prime Minister
  We are committed to improving hours and working conditions of junior doctors, and are doing so. The number of junior doctors working more than 56 hours was 4,793, or fewer than one in six in September 1998, having fallen every six months since March 1997 when it stood at 6,485.

  The numbers are likely to have fallen further since then, given the continuing action to improve working hours. The regional task force chairmen—who are responsible for providing support and advice to the NHS on reducing junior doctors hours—have confirmed that, keeping to a consistent definition of hours worked, they would have expected the numbers of junior doctors working more than 56 hours to have fallen further since September 1998, continuing the trend after March 1997.

  However, in December 1998, with the support and agreement of the Junior Doctors Committee, we introduced new and tougher compliance criteria in order to safeguard the quality of rest periods for junior doctors. Although they would not in fact represent a change in actual hours worked, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on 19 May 1999, Official Report, column 1139, that any figures on this new basis could well be higher. As expected, around 8,500 posts were found not to be complying with this different and tougher measure, which for the first time included, for example, the number of rest hours while on call and at weekends, as well as actual hours worked. We are committed to reducing this number further.
  628
  There is therefore no statistical basis for making the comparison requested between September 1998 and March 1999. Our best estimate is that the numbers working over 56 hours are likely to have continued to fall over that period.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Voluntary Work
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to encourage and support voluntary work in the community. [88980]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department encourages a wide range of voluntary activity in education and training. We have also established Millennium Volunteers to enable young people aged 16–24 to give their time for the benefit of others and support of the Prime Minister's vision of an Active Community.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to inform employers and small businesses of their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [88981]

  Ms Hodge
  On 9 June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched our "See the Person" campaign which, among other things, aims to improve business awareness of obligations to disabled people under the DDA. The DDA Helpline continues to provide help. A range of leaflets and advice has been produced, targeted at suppliers of goods and services and employers. On 29 June we published a new Code of Practice on the DDA responsibilities of service providers. This will be backed by national newspaper advertisements in July, and further newspaper and radio advertisements in the Autumn, as well as articles, speeches and seminars targeted at business.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the progress made in eliminating the backlog of essential repairs and improvements to school buildings in England. [88982]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We certainly inherited a large backlog of repairs and improvements when we took office. We have already allocated £680 million under the New Deal for Schools and will be supporting capital works amounting to a further £5 billion over the rest of this Parliament. This represents a doubling of investment compared to the previous Government and will substantially reduce the backlog. LEAs are responsible for their own maintenance programmes. By developing Asset Management Plans, which we are supporting and encouraging they will be able to make a more accurate assessment of capital spending needs and priorities, in consultation with their schools and their local partners.

  Young People (Assistance)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support is given by his Department to initiatives for helping young people who are not in education, training or employment. [88983]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in announcing the Government's White Paper, "Learning to Succeed", outlined a new strategy called 'Connexions' for making sure that far more young people continue in education and training until they are at least 19.

  Alongside the forthcoming Social Exclusion Unit Report on 16–18 year olds not in education, training or work, and building on the White Paper, we expect to announce more about the strategy and the new support service for young people shortly.

  Age Discrimination
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to tackle age discrimination in the workplace. [88984]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are making good progress. Within the last month we have launched the Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment; announced the Pathfinder Areas for the New Deal 50plus. and initiated consultation on the basic design guidelines for New Deal 50plus. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Severe Learning Disability
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of those with severe learning disability. [88985]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Our policies for children with special educational needs, including those with severe learning difficulties, are set out in "Meeting Special Educational Needs: a programme of action", published on 5 November 1998.

  School Funding (LEAs)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the funds passed on to schools by local education authorities in 1999–2000. [88986]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the tables which we recently published which show that in 1999–2000 14 authorities passed on less than 90 per cent. of the increase in the education Standard Spending Assessment and a further 20 are passing on less than the full 100 per cent. of the increase. The remaining authorities passed at least 100 per cent. of the increase and in some cases more.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the tables of English local education authorities schools' budgets. [88996]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The feedback that we have received so far from local education authorities on the tables of comparative data has on the whole been positive.
  630
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those local authorities not spending the full amount of their central Government funding allocated for schools. [89000]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We published tables of local education authority expenditure for the first time on 24 June. They indicated that 34 authorities had increased their education budgets this year by less than 100 per cent. of the increase of their Standard Spending Assessment: full details are in the tables, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries. The figures were constructed from a comparison between the Local Schools' Budget in 1999–2000 and the General Schools budget in 1998–99, with adjustments and making allowance for authorities' expenditure on non-school items.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about the funding of schools in Northumberland; and if he will make a statement. [89001]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Since the start of the financial year the Department has received five letters about school funding in Northumberland.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [88987]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are on course to meet our pledge to limit infant class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or below by September 2001. There were almost 130,000 fewer infants in classes over 30 in January this year than in January 1998. We expect the number of infant pupils in classes over 30 to fall below 200,000 by September, a reduction of almost 60 per cent. on the January 1998 figure of 485,000.

  Literacy (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provisions there are in the National Curriculum to ensure the teaching of literacy in primary schools. [88988]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Our proposals for the revised National Curriculum are fully aligned with the objectives in the National Literacy Strategy "Framework for Teaching", which primary schools have been teaching in the daily Literacy Hour since September 1998.

  New Deal 50plus
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which areas have been chosen for new deal 50plus pathfinder projects. [88989]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There will be nine pathfinder areas, one in each of the seven Employment Service regions in England, and one each in Scotland and Wales. Those areas are: Black Country; City Pride Manchester; Dorset; Durham; Edinburgh East and Midlothian; Hull; North Derbyshire; North East Wales; and Oxfordshire.

  Early Learning
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what responses there have been to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's consultation on establishing a foundation stage for three to five-year-olds. [88990]

  Ms Hodge
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's recently published summary of responses to the review of the Desirable Learning Outcomes shows overwhelming support for the establishment of a foundation stage for three to five-year-olds.

  Percentage

  Questions asked by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  Sample response

  Are the aims of the foundation stage broadly right?

  98

  Do the Early Learning Goals reflect the aims?

  Average 95

  Are the Early Learning goals appropriate for the majority of children at the end of the foundation stage?

  Average 91

  Should a foundation stage be established?

  89

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to raise the quality of early years pre-school education. [88993]

  Ms Hodge
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is reviewing the Desirable Learning Outcomes and has proposed the introduction of a Foundation Stage until the end of Reception Year. The QCA is also establishing a Qualifications and Training Framework for the early years education, child care and playwork sector. The Government are currently considering their response to the consultation on regulation and inspection of early years education and care and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the review of pre-school education will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [88998]

  Ms Hodge
  I have asked the panel reviewing the future role of pre-schools and playgroups to report to me by the middle of August. The review is considering how pre-schools and playgroups can play a full part in the expansion of early education and child care services.

  Excluded Pupils
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils were excluded from school last year; and if he will make a statement. [88991]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In 1997–98 12,300 pupils were permanently excluded from maintained schools. This is good news because permanent exclusions have fallen by 3 per cent. (from 12,700 in 1996–97), the first decrease since the Department began collecting information in 1994–95.

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to increase the equality of funding between pupils in different parts of England. [88992]
  632
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Over the next three years we will be reviewing the methodology for calculating Education Standard Spending Assessments to improve the fairness of the current formula and to try to find long-term solutions to the problems we inherited.

  Lecturers' Pay
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional resources will be made available to increase pay levels for lecturers in further and higher education institutions. [88994]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have made available an extra £776 million for higher education this financial year and next and an extra £725 million for further education over the same period. It is for the employers in their respective sectors to determine how much of these increases to devote to pay.

  Nursery Places (Sheffield)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the provision of nursery places in Sheffield. [88995]

  Ms Hodge
  Sheffield's Early Years Development and Childcare Plan for 1999–2000 sets out how a free early education place is being made available for every four-year-old child whose parents want it. My Department gave full approval to Sheffield's Plan in March. Sheffield was one of 57 authorities allocated funding for creating new nursery places for three-year-olds in 1999/2000. We are still considering each Local Education Authority's plan for increasing early education places for three-year-olds.

  New Deal Gateway
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to improve the functioning of the New Deal Gateway. [88997]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As part of the continuous improvement of New Deal we are currently in the final stages of planning for trailblazer products which will develop and test a number of different approaches in making achievement more intensive for young people in the Gateway. These are due to be launched later this summer. Additional measures are also being introduced across the country this month to make the fourth month of Gateway more effective in managing the transition of individuals between the Gateway and jobs or New Deal options.

  The New Deal carries with it obligations for young people to make use of the support offered. That is why we recently announced our intention to strengthen the sanctions against young people who fail to co-operate in moving from Gateway to suitable options.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the environmental task force option within the new deal for young people. [88999]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures to the end of April 1999 show that 14,200 young people had started on the New Deal Environment
  633
  Task Force. This Option offers young people a range of practical skills, work experience and an opportunity to study towards a recognised qualification normally up to S/NVQ level 2 or equivalent. I am increasingly impressed by the progress of this option and the range of projects it has available.

  New Deal (Employers)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employers have signed up to the New Deal to date. [89002]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Almost 52,000 employers have signed New Deal agreements so far.

  School Transport
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to announce the results of the review of school transport. [89003]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The School Travel Advisory Group, formed to look at all aspects of school travel and transport, will be making recommendations to Ministers in the autumn.

  A-level Results
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the average A-level results for each subject, for each local education authority area, broken down by (i) schools and (ii) sixth form colleges in 1998. [88584]

  Mr. Mudie
  A table giving details of the average GCE A-level results for the twelve most popular subjects, for each local education authority area, broken down by (i) schools and (ii) sixth form colleges in 1998 will be placed in the Library.

  Research Grants
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the criteria used to determine what sums are awarded to each individual higher education establishment in the form of research grants. [88831]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has set out its criteria for allocating research funds in a guide "Funding higher education in England: How the HEFCE allocates its funds", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  The Research Councils award competitive grants to researchers in higher education using peer review to assess proposals. The current criteria employed by each of the Research Councils have been placed in the Library.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the subject and date of each written briefing prepared by his Special Advisers for all Labour Members since May 1997 and the total number and total cost to date of these. [89980]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: Special Advisers are appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Schedule 1,
  634
  Part 1 of the Model Contract sets out the role and duties of Special Advisers. As well as research for Ministers and reviewing papers, contributing to policy planning with the Department and preparing policy papers, speechwriting and liaison with outside interest groups, their role explicitly includes liaising with the Party and helping to brief Party MPs. Records are not held of when such briefings are given. Similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.

  School Performance Tables
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that school performance tables reflect the achievements of children of all abilities. [89342]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The achievements of all pupils in GCSEs, GNVQs, other vocational qualifications and National Curriculum assessments are included in school performance tables, regardless of their abilities. We continue to look for ways of reporting the achievements of pupils who are unable to meet the minimum standards of the GCSE and equivalent qualifications by the end of their compulsory schooling, in consultation with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. We introduced a point score in the secondary tables in 1998 to reflect achievements across the full ability range more closely.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many meetings of the JCC he has attended. [89276]

  Mr. Mudie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 362.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost of providing each further education student with an individual learning account credited with an amount equivalent to the cost of undergraduate tuition fees. [89359]

  Mr. Mudie
  The national framework for individual learning accounts is being developed. Currently we are targeting people aged 18 years and over who are in employment or about to return to work. At this stage, we are not planning to offer individual learning accounts to full-time further education students. We are planning to pilot different approaches to some aspects of further education funding through individual learning accounts during 1999 and 2000.

  Safe Play Surfaces
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the guidance issued since 1992 to local education authorities regarding the provision of, and funds for, safe play surfaces for(a) nursery schools and units, (b) infant and junior schools and (c) secondary schools. [89964]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department's guidance for schools on play surfaces is contained within its 1997 Building Bulletin 85, "School Grounds: A Guide to Good Practice". Before then, the Department referred inquirers
  635
  to the National Playing Field Association's publication, "Play Safety Guidelines", and continues to do so. The Department has not issued guidance to local education authorities on funding for safe play surfaces.

  Commonwealth (National Curriculum)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will include study of the Commonwealth in the planned citizenship module of the national curriculum. [90111]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The proposed framework for citizenship sets out programmes of study to help pupils become informed, active and responsible citizens, which at Key Stages 3 and 4 covers knowledge and understanding of the challenges of global interdependence and responsibility. This offers an opportunity for study of the Commonwealth.

  Primary School Inspections
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations he has received about lay inspectors heading inspections of primary schools; [90289]

  (2) what training is received by lay inspectors heading inspections of primary schools; [90290]

  (3) what proportion of inspections of primary schools is headed by lay inspectors. [90291]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The registration and training of inspectors who conduct school inspections contracted-out by Ofsted is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. He announced in 1996 that an opportunity would be provided for experienced lay inspectors with appropriate skills to become Registered Inspectors and therefore be eligible to lead school inspection teams. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Transmitter Masts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidance he has given to those schools which have transmitting masts on their premises concerning the impact of these masts upon the health of pupils, professional staff, ancillary staff and the general public; and if he will make a statement; [90365]

  (2) how many schools, primary and secondary, have approached him concerning the health and safety consequences of transmitting masts on schools premises regarding pupils, staff and the general public; and if he will make a statement; [90366]

  (3) what research he has commissioned into the potential health hazards of transmitting masts on school premises; and if he will make a statement. [90367]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The National Radiological Protection Board—which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health sponsors—is responsible for advising the Government on radiological protection 636
  matters. The Department has not separately issued advice to schools or commissioned research on the impact of these masts.

  Since July 1997, the Department has received two letters from schools, 25 letters from members of the public and six letters from hon. Members about the possible health effects of radio transmitters on school premises. Of these 33 letters, 31 were received during the past two weeks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations at his constituency office in Sheffield.

  We take very seriously the recent public concern about the siting of these masts on school premises and the possible health risks to children. Discussions are taking place urgently with the other Departments involved to see what further research and guidance or other action may be necessary.

  Schools (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support has been given to schools to enable them to become accessible to those with disabilities. [88972]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Each year we have increased substantially the resources available for the Schools Access Initiative, to invest in making mainstream schools more accessible to those with disabilities and sensory impairments. For the three years from April 1999 we will be allocating a total of £100 million of new money. The £20 million we have allocated this year will improve access for pupils in over 1,600 schools.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects the Disability Rights Commission to be fully operational. [89711]

  Ms Hodge
  Subject to Parliament enacting the Disability Rights Commission Bill, which had its Report and Third Reading in this House on 30 June 1999,Official Report, columns 365–400, we expect the Commission to begin operations in April 2000. Initial planning for the establishment of the Commission has begun. However, much of the work cannot commence until after Royal Assent of the Bill and when the Chairman, Chief Executive and Commissioners have been appointed. It will be for them to decide the range of services available from its operational date.

  Teachers (Age Profiles)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many state school teachers there are aged between (a) 21 and 25, (b) 25 and 30, (c) 30 and 35, (d) 35 and 40, (e) 40 and 45, (f) 45 and 50, (g) 50 and 55, (h) 55 and 60 and (i) 60 and 65 years. [90088]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is contained in Table 26 of the publication "Statistics of Education: Teachers: England and Wales: 1998 Edition". A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Reproductive Health
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What key future actions and benchmarks about reproductive health were agreed at the recent special session at the United Nations General Assembly, and how Her Majesty's Government will respond.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the report adopted at last week's UN General Assembly Special Session on the five-year review of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD+5) includes key future actions to curb the spread of HIV, to improve maternal health outcomes and increase access to sexual and reproductive healthcare in developing countries, including for young people. We shall be discussing these recommendations with our developing country partners and with United Nations health and development agencies, and taking them forward in our programmes.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which reflects the encouraging attitude that the Government are displaying. Does the noble Baroness accept that part of the effect of this successful United Nations process has been the integration of population into broader development policies? Does she also accept that this issue is no longer just about numbers but about the key role that population policies can play in matters such as sustainable development, giving women choices, environmental issues and the simple reduction of poverty? Given this new UN framework, can the Minister say whether the Government will continue to use that as a basis to give priority and urgency to the matter of population in the policies of the department?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. It is extremely important that a systematic approach is taken to the development of the health sector in developing countries. It has been shown that it is only by doing so that we can deal will some of the very concrete and real problems that exist in the areas of reproductive health.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to reassess the contribution of Her Majesty's Government to the Chinese Population Association, through the UNFPA and IPPF, of many millions of pounds over the past decade and the use of that money in programmes of forced sterilisation and abortion of Chinese women? The fact that this monstrous abuse of human rights in China has been aided and abetted by the
1016
use of British taxpayers' money is surely a matter of some infamy—certainly in supporting a regime that now has a policy which prohibits more than one child per family; indeed, it is the only country in the world where it is illegal to have a brother or a sister.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the UK gives no bilateral support, either financial or technical, to family planning programmes in China. However, as the noble Lord said, we give core annual grants to support the efforts of UNFPA and IPPF to improve reproductive health throughout the world. These organisations do not only work in China. Both organisations are working in China to bring about changes in policy and practice by promoting services to improve health and choices in ways that respond to the individual needs of the Chinese population.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, a key feature of the United Nations Special Session was its committed aim to develop programmes to improve access to sex education. In view of the importance of this knowledge, can my noble friend the Minister indicate what action the Government propose to take to support those programmes and to deal with the estimated 1.2 billion adolescents who are excluded from such information?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that there was a great deal of discussion about the position of young people who are most at risk, both physically and psychologically, of sexual and reproductive ill-health. In terms of the specific programmes and policies which we aim to support the report stated very clearly that school children need to be instructed in sexual and reproductive health issues to teach them responsible sexual behaviour. We shall allocate more resources for adolescents' sexual and reproductive health. It is important to provide special family planning information, counselling and services for sexually-active young people. It is also important to promote the duties, responsibilities and rights of parents, who will want to give guidance to their children about their sexual and reproductive health. So this was a very important area in the document which came out of the meeting.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, although I support the lead role that the DfID has taken in the area of reproductive health, does the Minister agree that HIV and AIDS are now one of the main causes of infant mortality and that the only way of actually combating what is now such a widespread epidemic in Africa is to spend a vast amount of additional money on finding a vaccine?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that we think it is important to work on prevention, because it will take such a long time to get to the point where a vaccine is available. Indeed, if current trends continue, over 40 million people will have been infected with HIV by the year 2000 and 95 per cent of them will be in the developing world. In fact, we have supported

1017
the international AIDS vaccine initiative, and we think that a safe vaccine effective against strains of HIV most common in the developing world is within our grasp during the next 10 years. Therefore, prevention and working on a vaccine are both important.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister share the concerns of the chairman of the Special Session's ad hoc committee, Anwarul Karim Chowdhury, that the vitally important population and development programmes may suffer due to the drying up of resources, despite the much welcomed political commitment that has been made? What assurances can the Minister give to allay those concerns?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there has been an agreement that the developed world will give substantially to the budget to assist with the implementation of ICPD+5. The United Kingdom Government have a budget for health of £250 million through the DfID, a substantial proportion of which is through multilateral donor organisations, as well as funding some NGOs through our bilateral programmes. So, although there has been a residual concern, we feel very strongly that this is an area which is receiving, and will continue to receive, adequate support.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the key point here is that all children born, whether into developing or developed countries, should be wanted and should be born because mothers and fathers—or, at least, mothers—want to have them? Does the Minister also agree that all steps should be taken, whether it concerns a developed or an under-developed country, to make that so? Children should not be brought into this world if they are not cared for once they are born.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is one of the reasons that we feel it is important to put reproductive health strategies, maternal health strategies and other health strategies within a broader context of trying to ensure that we have a world which is sustainable and where we aim to eliminate poverty.

Curriculum Proposals: Marriage
3.10 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Secretary of State for Education and Employment's proposals published on 13th May for the new curriculum for personal, social and health education and for citizenship omit any reference to marriage.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, marriage will not be neglected. The curriculum proposals are based on the report of the Personal, Social and Health Education Advisory Group, Preparing Young People for
1018
Adult Life. This states clearly the importance of helping pupils to understand the value of family life and the institutions that support it, including marriage. We accepted the report in full. The proposals are currently out for consultation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has already made clear that the final curriculum framework will include an explicit reference to the importance of marriage. This is in response to the representations already received.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that helpful and encouraging Answer. Does she agree that there is a substantial body of research which suggests that children who grow up in happy, stable, two-parent families have, on average, a better chance of achieving their potential, and that marriage with all its faults is probably the best way the human race has so far discovered of supporting and sustaining that kind of long-term relationship? Therefore, it is extremely important that children should have an opportunity to know the facts about partnerships and marriage and to discuss their implications while they are still at school.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is important that we should do everything we can to make sure that children grow up in happy and stable circumstances, and marriage is often the background in which that kind of happiness and stability can be created. At the same time, it is important that we are sensitive to the fact that there are large numbers of children in our schools who do not have that good fortune. It would be sad if anything that we did in schools made those children feel even more inadequate. This is an area where we want teachers to be sensitive. Teachers are receiving training to achieve just that.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does teaching the importance of marriage include reference to its durability?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is it not also true that one of the four themes proposed for personal, social and health education is the,
"development of satisfying and effective relationships recognising and respecting difference"?
I believe that I have quoted that extract correctly. Would that not be an extraordinarily useful general acquisition for all our young people?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is a helpful contribution. It is, of course, the case that many children come from backgrounds and homes where traditional family patterns do not exist. We need to respect that. We also need to persuade children and young people that they have to be tolerant, that there are many different models, and that different models work for different people. That is something that should be taught in our schools.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness concerned that the Government's White Paper on the family makes clear that marriage is the best way for

1019
couples to live—I may not have the terminology exact, but that is certainly its intent—but the document from the noble Baroness's department on values does not mention marriage and seems to many of us to be putting in front of children unsafe and unreliable forms of living?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness heard my first Answer, but I thought that I had made it clear that Preparing Young People for Adult Life makes it absolutely clear that a stable family background is important and that the report refers to marriage. The foreword by the Secretary of State does so. The other document which considers revisions to the national curriculum is out for consultation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that we shall respond to the representations that have been made about marriage.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her reply gave great pleasure to these Benches? Is she also aware that we believe that it is possible to say all the positive things which have been said in government publications without implying any of the negatives which have sometimes been thought to follow from those positives? Is she aware that we would give the sensitive treatment of these issues our full support?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his welcome of the Government's position on this matter and for his support, and that of his Benches, for a sensitive approach to what is a sensitive issue.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it true that the Government have plans to lift the clause in the Act which bars teachers in schools from proselytising homosexual relationships as a preferred way of life?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness has the matter quite right. Section 28 does not relate to teachers in schools; it is about local education authorities.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that,
"The joys of marriage are the heaven on earth,
Life's paradise, the great princess, the soul's quiet,
Sinews of concord, earthly immortality"?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to match the noble Baroness in replying to that!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it within the remit—it may be—of the Department for Education and Employment to give definitive advice about marriage?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Department for Education and Employment has responsibility for the school curriculum, including questions of personal, social and health matters that affect all young people.
1020
I think it is right that the department. through listening to advice from experts in this area, should then provide a framework which schools can use.

Healthcare Waste Disposal
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether standards for the disposal of healthcare waste are satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, there are stringent controls in place to ensure that healthcare waste is disposed of satisfactorily. Under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 healthcare waste must be disposed of under a waste management licence issued by the Environment Agencies. The purpose of a licence is to ensure that waste is disposed of in ways which protect the environment and human health. Contravention of licence conditions is a criminal offence.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he accept that material which has been in contact with body fluids or patients' wounds is especially dangerous waste and that sharps—that is, blades and needles—are the most dangerous? As the best healthcare waste management involves minimisation, segregation and isolation, can he tell us what proportion of National Health waste is disposed of on site where these materials have been used?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot give the total figures but largely as a result of improved segregation techniques there has been a substantial reduction in the total amount of clinical waste—from 128,000 tonnes to just over 100,000 tonnes over the past three years—which is disposed of under these regulations.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the stringent controls with regard to healthcare waste. However, I am sure he is aware of a major national investigation that has been conducted by the police and the Environment Agency into the activities of a major healthcare waste disposal contractor. Can he tell us a little more about the activities of the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive with regard to issuing new guidance on healthcare waste disposal, which has not been updated since 1992?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot comment on individual cases. Continuous work is carried out by both the Environment Agency and by the Health and Safety Agency in relation to the handling and transportation of clinical waste. A number of specific codes have been issued which address particular problems. For example, last year a code was issued by the NHS on clinical waste disposal treatments and technology as alternatives to

1021
incineration; the previous year we issued Healthcare in waste management—segregation of waste streams in clinical areas, which addressed the segregation problem to which the noble Baroness referred. So there has been quite a lot of additional guidance recently.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, can the Minister say how many breaches of these standards have been committed in the last year? Is he satisfied that there are enough inspectors?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. There are a number of different agencies—the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Agency and the NHS—and I cannot give an aggregate figure.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that the proper disposal of waste is entirely dependent upon meticulous and detailed management. The least hazardous and most cost effective way of disposing of healthcare waste is on-site. If that can be done it reduces the management risk. However, many hospitals still have their clinical waste removed. Can the Minister say what is the cost of that removal to the National Health Service? Can he give any indication of how long it will be before hospitals in general have their own disposal facilities?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord's questions is that I cannot give that information. The noble Lord is exaggerating the problem. A fair amount of clinical waste can be disposed of relatively easily externally to the place of creation provided that care is taken and the codes are followed. Toxic or otherwise dangerous waste—which is a relatively small proportion of total healthcare waste—is covered by tighter regulations under the Special Waste Regulations 1996. Clearly hospitals, health centres and those who deal with that kind of waste must observe special precautions. However, a fair amount of the total clinical waste is not of that level of danger.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the serious problem of healthcare material being misused by drug addicts and then thrown onto the ground in local authority areas throughout most of the country? Children are at particular risk because the needles and syringes have a fascination for them. What controls are there, or could there be, to deal with this problem? It does not really fit into any of the official methods of disposal.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. Syringes, cartridges and other carriers of drugs are, regrettably, often disposed of irresponsibly and completely outside the waste disposal system. The only control is effective local authority waste disposal. Inevitably some things slip through. It is a problem which local authorities are well aware of.

Kosovo: Russian Deployment
3.23 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the NATO Council unanimously approved the request to Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary to deny their airspace to Russian planes bringing peace-keepers to Kosovo.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, requests for overflight clearance are a matter for individual nations. The North Atlantic Council, which, as the House knows, operates by consensus, agreed on 16th June that the NATO military authorities would advise nations of requests which related to deployments to Kosovo approved by Commander KFOR. On 26th and 27th June, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary asked NATO to check whether Commander KFOR had yet given formal approval to particular Russian deployments; the NATO military authorities confirmed that he had not. Arrangements for the Russian deployment were concluded successfully on 5th July, and we are pleased to note that the deployment is now proceeding smoothly.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while the hitches and confusion are comprehensible, what is against KFOR now coming under the direct control of the United Nations—in other words, what is against the British general commanding KFOR becoming the servant of the United Nations? If that were possible, it would provide automatic assent and obedience to his orders, not only by Russia but by China if it was involved, which it probably is not. Would not it make sense to have a shot in this direction? It would avoid this necessary action on behalf of world civilisation being conducted by a partial alliance and would allow it to be conducted by a universal alliance of all humanity?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not agree that there was confusion over the matter; it was a very straightforward matter which has been satisfactorily resolved. As for whether it would be right to bring KFOR under the command of the UN, those who have watched the matter carefully will agree that the agreements which have been reached have been negotiated very carefully. Any suggestion that the agreements should now be unravelled and put into a different arena would be counter-productive.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, what advantages does the Minister think the Russians gained by sending a surprise rapid expeditionary force of tanks from Bosnia to Pristina to gain control of the airport? Does not that show that at heart the Russians are still more interested in gaining territory than in negotiating? What does that suggest for the long-term peace prospects in the Balkans?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord should ask the Russians what advantage they thought to gain. It was certainly not a move to which

1023
Her Majesty's Government were privy. The Russian deployment at Pristina is continuing, with the Russians managing the ground facilities and the NATO deployment controlling the airspace. I am pleased to say that since 5th July, the issues left outstanding from the negotiations of 28th June have now been resolved. We very much look forward to working with Russian colleagues in order to ensure peace and security in Kosovo.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, instead of raking over dead embers, is it not a matter of some gratification—not least for the people of Kosovo—that those involved as peace-keepers are now working together in purposeful collaboration? Is not that the point?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, that is very much the point. The agreement on the technical details which we were able to reach on 5th July has underpinned Russia's involvement in KFOR. Her Majesty's Government welcome that agreement. It clears the way for an enhanced NATO-Russian co-operation over Kosovo.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is it not of the greatest importance that we are absolutely certain that the Russian troops will be fully integrated into the NATO operation in such a way that the opening-up of any fault lines on ethnic grounds in Kosovo can be avoided? Is the Minister satisfied that the full integration of Russian forces in every area of the province will take place?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I am satisfied on that point. The agreement reached on 5th July has preserved NATO's unity of command and has given Russia a distinct role within the German, French and US sectors, but not its own sector. As I have indicated, there is some Russian participation on the ground at Pristina airport, which is in the British sector. There are some 750 Russian troops at the airport, about 1,000 in the German sector and smaller deployments in the French and United States sectors. The political direction and tactical control will be provided by NAC but Russia will retain full political and military control of its contingent.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister would give the House an update on the refugee picture in Kosovo as of today.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I tell him that my figures are as of yesterday, 7th July. They indicate that some 618,000 individuals have returned to Kosovo. That means that about two-thirds of the regional refugees have returned in less than three weeks. The picture is slightly different depending on whether we
1024
are talking about Macedonia, Albania or Montenegro. However, we are seeing a general return to Kosovo, which is very heartening.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House anything about the demilitarisation of the KLA?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the commander of KFOR is responsible for overseeing the demilitarisation of all the armed groups in. Kosovo, covered by UNSCR 1244. The KLA undertaking is a unilateral commitment setting out how the KLA will comply with its obligations under the United Nations Security Council resolution.
On 30th June, the Kosovo Albanian forces accepted the KLA's undertaking; so they accepted what had been said on their behalf by their civilian leaders as set down in the agreement that had been signed by Mr Thaqi on 21st June. So the undertaking has been agreed politically and at military level by the KLA.
Lord Monson: My Lords, have any promises been made to Bulgaria and Romania as a reward for their co-operation with NATO over the Kosovo operation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we want countries such as Romania and Bulgaria to join the alliance as soon as they can. There is no pre-ordained order for future invitations. Each candidate will be judged on its own merits. NATO will issue any invitations to nations willing and able to assume those responsibilities and obligations as it determines they are ready for such an invitation. The next review process—the next summit—will take place no later than 2002.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Immigration and Asylum Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 34,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 35 to 46,

Schedule 2,

Clause 47,

Schedule 3,

Clause 48,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 49 to 73,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 74 to 75,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 76 to 77,

Schedule 7,

1025

Clauses 78 to 85,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 86 to 93,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 94 to 144,

Schedule 10,

Clause 145,

Schedule 11,

Clause 146,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 147 to 158,

Schedules 13 to 15.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, I gladly support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, which, I am glad to say, states that we should deal with the Bill in a Committee of the Whole House in the order in which the clauses are set out in the Bill, taking the schedules with the clauses as they arise.
However, it should be borne in mind that this is a very long Bill, containing 158 clauses and 15 schedules, and that parts of it are controversial. Bearing in mind that we have only a relatively short time left in this Session, how many days are the Government prepared to let us have for discussion in what will necessarily be a long Committee stage?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support for the Motion. Speaking personally, I have listened to his advice when we have had this sort of discussion in the past. We thought that this was the best way of dealing with the matter. As to the number of days, I undertake to give careful attention to what the noble Lord has said, and it must remain a matter for the usual channels.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Academic and Academic-Related Staff Pay and Conditions Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

The Post Office
3.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Post Office which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"I wish to make a Statement on the Post Office White Paper which the Government published today. This White Paper sets the agenda for the Post Office to offer a world-class service for the 21st century.
"Today's announcement is good news for the Post Office and all those whose livelihoods depend on it, because it can now build for the future with real confidence. It is good news for the Post Office's
1026
millions of customers, who will benefit from improved services from a new, modernised Post Office and from greater competition for postal services.
"It brings an end to the uncertainty that has dogged the Post Office over the last decade: uncertainty over its role and place in society; uncertainty over its long-term viability and ownership; uncertainty over the universal service obligation; and uncertainty over the Post Office network. Today we provide certainty and a new sense of direction and purpose—based on modernisation and reform.
"Throughout the world, postal markets are changing at an increasingly rapid rate. Globalisation of postal services, the growth of faxes and e-mail, more demanding customers and greater liberalisation of markets are driving change as never before. It is not a question of whether markets will become more competitive, but how far and how fast. The Post Office already faces fierce competition, not only from private sector couriers, but also from other post offices throughout Europe and from the Internet. I know that the Post Office management see change and greater competition as an opportunity and not as a threat—an opportunity to enter new markets and to overhaul the Post Office's business processes; an opportunity for new ventures and new alliances; an opportunity to prove that the Post Office can compete against the best in the world and do so successfully.
"But in order to compete effectively and fulfil its potential, the Post Office needs greater flexibility. If it is not given greater freedom to expand into wider and international markets it will find itself confined to a diminishing sector of the postal market, saddled with falling value and shrinking profits.
"That is why in this White Paper the Government are mapping out the most radical set of reforms since the modern Post Office was created in 1969—reforms which will ensure that the Post Office can provide the services we need in the 21st century.
"The White Paper proposes that the Post Office be subject to a combination of effective market disciplines coupled with regulation and be allowed new commercial freedoms. Operating at arm's length from Government, it will have the freedom to grow and the means to succeed.
"Existing mail services will be maintained and indeed strengthened as, for the first time, the universal service obligation, including the requirement to deliver to all addresses, will be laid down in law. That will guarantee the uniform tariff for these services. The cost of a stamp will be the same, regardless of the distance of delivery. And the free service for visually impaired people will continue.
"Stronger competition and better regulation will work together to keep prices down and improve service quality and consumer choice. As part of the balanced package that we are bringing forward, greater commercial freedom must be matched with some liberalisation.

1027
"The White Paper therefore proposes a reduction in the monopoly from the present £1 to 50p or 150 grammes with effect from 1st April 2000. A new independent postal services regulator will promote consumer interests, regulate prices and ensure that the Post Office provides a high level of service to all households and businesses. And consumers' views will be championed by a greatly strengthened Post Office Users National Council which will have the power to refer poor performance by the Post Office to the Regulator and will be able to recommend the levels of fine to be imposed for bad service.
"The Post Office Counters network, which plays such a valuable role in local communities, particularly for the less mobile, will be strengthened by our decision to put the Horizon project back on track. We shall equip all 19,000 post offices with a modern, on-line computer system.
"It will enable the Post Office to modernise and improve the service it gives to existing clients and customers, and to win the new business on which the future success of the Post Office network will depend.
"For the first time the Government will lay down minimum criteria in order to ensure that everyone in the UK has reasonable access to post office counter services particularly in rural parts of the country and areas of social deprivation. The new regulator and the users' council will monitor the network against these criteria.
"We have agreed arrangements with the Post Office for maintaining a network of Crown offices which will handle at least 15 per cent of the total counters' business. Where appropriate, new Crown offices may be opened.
"The Government will set out clear objectives for the Post Office, but they will not be involved in day-to-day business operations. The Post Office board will be responsible for running the Post Office, based on a rolling, five-year strategic plan, agreed with the Government.
"Clear duties, real powers and the necessary resources to promote the consumers' interests will be given to the independent regulator and the users' council. Annual reports will be published by the Government, by the Post Office, by the regulator and by the users' council on their roles and their performance during the year.
"We will implement as much of this package as possible through administrative action and secondary legislation. However, primary legislation will be needed as soon as parliamentary time permits to complete the full package of reforms.
"Primary legislation will be necessary to transform the Post Office into a public limited company which will both underline the new commercial freedoms and help to establish clearly the separate functions of ownership and management by subjecting the Post Office to the full range of company law. In particular, the directors will owe their duty to the company—not directly to the Government.
1028
"There have been suggestions from some quarters that this is part of a plan to privatise the Post Office by stealth. There are no such plans. As we said in our manifesto, we intend to provide commercial freedom while retaining the Post Office in public ownership. I can therefore inform the House that the Act of Parliament to create the Post Office as a plc will make it clear that we would not seek to dispose of Post Office shares without further primary legislation.
"Of course, we cannot ignore the possibility that the Post Office might wish to enter into a joint venture or strategic alliance with another company and might wish to cement this with a limited sale or exchange of equity. In such cases it would not always be sensible or practicable to seek parliamentary approval through a separate Act of Parliament. However I can assure the House that any such proposal would be debated and voted on in both Houses.
"To ensure that the Post Office can compete in the fast moving domestic and international postal market, we will give the Post Office the greater commercial freedom it has long desired. This will help the Post Office to be more competitive and more responsive to market developments and evolving customer demands.
"The Government's financial demands on the Post Office will be reduced to match commercial dividend rates. From April next year, it will be cut to 40 per cent of post-tax profits—more than half the rate at which profits have been removed from the business in recent years. This will be worth an estimated £150 million a year going directly to the Post Office.
"We will also allow the Post Office to borrow at commercial rates for growth investments up to £75 million a year without approval from the Government. This will give the Post Office greater freedom to enter into acquisitions, joint ventures, alliances and partnerships.
"But the Government recognise that the Post Office has been starved of resources as a result of the approach of the previous government. The Post Office cannot wait until April next year for the additional resources necessary to ensure that it can compete in the modern postal market. We therefore intend to take action immediately.
"I am pleased to inform the House that in this financial year we shall reduce the Government's financial demand on the Post Office to 50 per cent of post-tax profits and will allow borrowing of up to £75 million. This will provide an immediate cash boost to the Post Office of £175 million.
"Taken together, our proposals for greater commercial freedom will bring over £600 million into the Post Office over the next three years.
"I am confident that this White Paper maps out a future for the Post Office that will allow it to compete and win. We have a clear vision of a British Post Office which is world class and which aims to be among the most successful in the world.

1029
"This White Paper gives the Post Office management the commercial framework they need to turn this vision into reality. It is now up to them, working in partnership with the workforce, to respond to the exciting challenges ahead.
"This White Paper will put right the neglect of the past and deliver a Post Office which is fit for the 21st century. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement regarding the long-awaited White Paper on the future of the Post Office. While we welcome the Government's support for improved services, for greater competition, for more postal services and more flexibility for the delivery of those services, we are disappointed that the Government have effectively backtracked from the proposals clearly set forth in a Statement made by Peter Mandelson in another place in December last year.
The reason for the backtrack is, in our view, quite clear. It is because of the continuing, awkward power struggle between New Labour and the trade unions, with the inevitable result of a halfway house—an unsatisfactory and, we now hear, for many who work in the Post Office, an alarming and disturbing compromise. This is not full liberalisation of the Post Office, although I predict that it is an important first step to privatisation—a mere temporary measure.
The Secretary of State seems almost offended in his Statement that this is a route to wholesale privatisation by stealth. However, he cannot be surprised when, in his Statement in another place in December last year, Peter Mandelson stated:
"I should make it clear that we certainly do not rule out the possibility of introducing private shareholding into the Post Office—for example, through the sale of a minority stake in it—at a later stage".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/98; col. 21.]
Further in the Statement he said:
"[But] at present wholesale privatisation—
favoured by the Conservative Opposition—
"would not be a realistic option".
But the White Paper goes far beyond measures proposed by the previous government which looked to freeing up 'the Royal Mail alone—a measure which was strongly resisted by this Government when in opposition. Now they are in government, I suggest that we shall privatise every part of the Post Office.
I wish to place particular emphasis on the future for post offices in rural areas. We are especially concerned following the Secretary of State's clear statement in another place earlier today in response to a question in relation to the Post Office network that,
"I cannot guarantee that every network facility that exists today will remain for the future".
In that regard I am concerned with the minimum criteria which the White Paper mentions wherein the Government will seek to develop criteria for the Post Office network to ensure that the network is reasonably accessible to all.
1030
We welcome the Government's intention to equip post offices with the latest technology, providing access for everyone to an increasing range of services. But we are concerned about the true meaning of "reasonably accessible." We hope that access will not be dependent on the recipient also being equipped with the latest technology, for example e-mail, as opposed to a Post Office counter within a reasonable distance of one's home.
While we greatly appreciate and welcome the strengthened Post Office Users National Council, we have other concerns with regard to the ability of the council to respond to individuals and their wish and will to have redress against poor performance by the Post Office.
This Statement raises many questions for the future of the Post Office. I put the following questions to the Minister. How does the noble Lord expect the Post Office to compete effectively in world markets without the full commercial freedom that the privatised Dutch and German post offices enjoy? To what borrowing restrictions will the Post Office be subject? Will taxpayers' money be at risk? Further, what guarantees can the Minister give that rural post offices will not close? Does he agree with the fears of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that one-third of post offices are under threat as a result of the Government's abandonment of the benefit payment project?
3.50 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness on the Conservative Front Bench in welcoming this extremely significant Statement on the future of the Post Office. The noble Baroness was quite right to focus on two main issues that emerge from the Statement. The first is the absolute determination of everybody on this side of the House to ensure that the key paragraphs on page 3 of the Statement, relating to reasonable access to post office counter services in rural parts of the country and to areas of social deprivation, are carefully monitored. We must ensure that the programme of post office closures, which was started and accelerated to a great extent by the previous government, does not continue under this Government. I am sure that everyone in the House would like an assurance from the Minister that the deterioration in rural services and areas of social deprivation will not be allowed to continue.
The second critical issue on which the noble Baroness touched was privatisation. For those who have studied this matter, clearly there has been a big row. That is not surprising given that the proposed public limited company structure is different from that which we all thought would be adopted for the Post Office. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that there is no intention to privatise the Post Office. A clear statement to that effect would go a long way towards diminishing people's fears. In the Statement one sees the phrase "there are no such plans". I suspect that when British Telecom became a plc, as it did before privatisation, the government could legitimately have said that they had

1031
no such plans to privatise it. We do not want to know whether there are any plans but we do want an undertaking that that will not happen.
To transfer the whole of the assets of the Post Office—its property, undertaking and employees—will be a massive legal and financial task. First, does the Minister, via his officials, have any idea of the professional costs, which will be borne ultimately by the new plc, involved in performing that transfer? Secondly, has the noble Lord any comment to make on the potential criticism following the Statement in December that, while the Post Office would be given commercial freedom, it would be subject to public sector control with regard to salaries and pay'? Concern was expressed in a number of quarters that if the Post Office wanted to compete on an international basis, but was subject to public sector principles related to pay and salaries structures, the freedom of its board to manage it in the way it thought fit would be impeded.
Thirdly, is it correct that, following the creation of Post Office plc, the company will be subject to all the transparency to which any other UK listed company is subject, in particular the disclosure of prices paid for significant acquisitions which currently are not disclosed? Finally, does the Minister accept that the borrowing limit of £75 million which has been lifted is a relatively small amount of money to free from public sector controls? Does it not need to be kept under review? It may well be that that limit needs to be significantly higher.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Opposition must decide whether they are accusing the Government of back-tracking or wholesale privatisation. They cannot have it both ways. I humbly suggest that the reason for this confusion is the same as that which has dogged the Conservative Party for the past 18 years, with the result that it is paralysed in dealing with this issue. Quite simply, this is exactly in line with what Peter Mandelson said in introducing this matter in December. We have created a company that will have commercial freedom. To do that we have adopted the structure of a plc, which we believe to be the best form, but the body will remain in public ownership. We do not rule out the introduction of private equity at some time in the future, but we have no plans to do so. That was exactly what we said on the previous occasion.
As to rural sub-post offices, for the first time clear criteria are being laid down for access to the network. We cannot say that no rural sub-post office will ever close. The fact is that they are private commercial businesses and we cannot guarantee that they will remain open. For the first time we are laying down clear criteria for accessibility which we believe should give people confidence that we take this matter very seriously. The regulator will also have a role in monitoring the network and seeing that those criteria are applied.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked about the cost of the task of turning the Post Office into a plc. I cannot give any figures, but. I do not believe that the cost will
1032
be huge because the basic structure already exists. What will be changed are the financial structures and those related to governance. The assets are already allocated to that body, and we do not believe that that will be a hugely complicated task.
I was asked about the freedom of the new body in terms of salaries and pay policy. We have said that this must be taken into account in public sector policy and have resonance with it. At the same time, we will probably introduce new parameters so that there is greater flexibility. Therefore, salaries and pay will not be controlled in exactly the same way as in the public sector. We believe that that will give the Post Office all the flexibility that it needs to pay the necessary salaries and wages to motivate staff and acquire the people they need to carry out its new tasks. The new body will have the transparency of a plc, and that is the reason for using that structure. That is a standard, agreed format 'which will be clear not only to the workers in the organisation and everyone in this country but elsewhere. Everyone will know the basis of the organisation with which they are dealing.
As far as concerns borrowing, the new body will be able to borrow £75 million each year. If any project is over £75 million, the body will have to obtain government permission for it, but we have made it very clear that we shall look at major projects that are in the strategic plan and that if they meet the criteria that we have set out, in terms of robustness, no undue risk and being commercially sensible, we shall allow them to go ahead. This gives the Post Office the freedom it requires.
4 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords. the Statement seems strangely familiar to those of us who went through this debate about a decade ago, and for that reason one must support the whole project.
Can the Minister clarify one point? He referred to the office of regulator, apparently in singular form. In the office of the regulator will there be subordinates with special knowledge of the four areas of the United Kingdom?
Finally, if a post office, great or small, is listed for closure, at what level will the consultations take place?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I should have said that the regulator will take the form of a commission, made up of a number of people. I am sure that we shall pay very serious consideration to the points the noble Lord has made with regard to that body, so that different parts of the United Kingdom are reflected within it. We shall, of course, continue and, indeed, increase the consultation process, particularly on areas such as Crown offices, so that local people are fully involved.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, where can I find the reference to a plc in Labour Party's manifesto documents? I have with me today all the consultative documents, the preamble to the manifesto and the

1033
manifesto's precursor. I should like to be directed to where the Labour Party said that it would create a plc for the Post Office.
I should have declared an interest. I spent over 50 years of my life directly associated with the Post Office and in latter years have continued that association as a trustee of the Post Office pension funds. I apologise for not having said that immediately. Anyone who has had a long connection with the Post Office, or even a short connection, will welcome the commercial freedom that is heralded in the White Paper. While being happy about that, I think that today is a sad day for the Post Office. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who said only yesterday in this House:
"whatever gloss the Minister puts on it, either today or tomorrow in the Statement, is not the creation of a plc with share capital the first step on the route to privatisation?".—[Official Report, 7/7/99; col. 877.]
I listened to the Statement in the other place and heard the assurances that were given. I am still unconvinced that there are enough safeguards.
That brings me to a specific question. Having heard the Secretary of State say today that the concept of an independent, publicly owned corporation was fundamentally flawed, I would welcome the comments of my noble friend the Minister on those fundamental flaws, because the matter of commercial freedom and all the other aspects of the White Paper could easily have been dealt with without the creation of a plc. I would love to know the fundamental flaws in the suggestion for an IPOC, which is an independent, publicly owned corporation.
Finally, I should like to ask whether the Post Office pension fund and staff superanuation scheme are unaffected. As the main one has been in surplus for many years, and the Post Office has enjoyed the benefit of a contributions holiday for so long. I should welcome an assurance that both pension funds are unaffected by the White Paper.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think the question of a plc was covered in the Labour Party manifesto, but things do happen in this world that were not covered in that manifesto. We said in the manifesto what we would do; we did not say that everything we did in government would be covered by it. There are very good reasons why we should use a plc format in this case. Perhaps I may rehearse them before coming on to why I do not think that an independent, publicly owned corporation is the right way.
As I said, the main argument is that we need to have a model that is clearly understood by people both within the organisation and outside. The plc format is clearly understood, is backed by legislation, and everyone understands it.
The problem with the argument for an independent, publicly owned corporation is specifying exactly what that means. It could mean a body that is exactly the same as the body we have today, with the same lack of definition. It could describe exactly the organisation that
1034
we are putting in place. We are putting in place a publicly owned corporation which is independent, and to stress the independence we are using the plc format, which makes it very clear that the body has commercial freedom. The argument against an IPOC is simply that it is not at all clear what it is, and if the Post Office is to take, as I hope it will, full advantage of its opportunities and commercial freedom, it must have a structure which everyone understands and which it can use.
As far as I know, the Post Office pension fund is not affected in any way, but I shall write to confirm that that is the case. I am sure that it is.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is not there a fundamental contradiction in what the noble Lord the Minister has said? He has talked a great deal about commercial freedom. He has talked about a company that can compete in world markets. Yet he has also talked about a £75 million borrowing limit, a sum which he would have thought was pretty modest in an earlier incarnation. Does this not suggest that the Government are determined to keep very tight control over the so-called "independent" plc? How will the company operate with commercial freedom in a tough and highly competitive world market if it has to return to the Treasury every time it wants to borrow more than that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, even in my previous incarnation I thought that £75 million, which is at least the cost of two supermarkets, was a large sum of money. I need to make it very clear that the £75 million is simply the amount that the Post Office can borrow automatically, without obtaining Treasury permission. The fact that the Post Office acquisition of German Parcel for around £300 million took place makes it very clear that this is no paper undertaking, but represents a serious increase in the commercial freedom of the Post Office.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as someone who has pressed regularly from these Benches for greater commercial freedom for the Post Office, and has expressed grave concern over the large sums extracted by the Treasury from post-tax profits, I am very pleased with the Statement. However, following on from the last question, I should like to probe further about the relations of the Government with the new board; the Government representing the shareholders, the nation. We heard that the Government will agree a five-year, rolling strategic plan. How will the Government call the Post Office to account on this? If opportunities arise for major acquisitions or joint ventures not in the plan, will the Post Office have to go back to the Government? How free will it be to operate in a market which, as the noble Lord the Minister explained to us, is evolving rapidly, globally and technologically, and in which one cannot anticipate in what directions opportunities will arise?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord that this is an absolutely key issue. Clearly, it is important that there is a five-year

1035
strategic plan and that the Government, as the major shareholder, are confident about that plan. But the whole reason for doing it in this way is that the Post Office would have the freedom, even if a project were not in the strategic plan, to come forward and ask for the money to be made available for it. We have laid down criteria for this. The main one is that it should be a commercially robust project and pose no undue risk to the company. Clearly, if it is in line with the strategic plan, the decision will come more quickly, but we are not ruling out other proposals which take account of specific opportunities that arise in the market.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have been in this and another place long enough to know that if the Statement had been made by a Tory:Minister there would have been hell to pay in the House of Commons and, indeed, here? That would have been perfectly justified because undoubtedly this is the first move towards privatisation, whether under a Labour government or a Tory government. What the Government are doing is opening the door to privatisation. Make no mistake about that.
I ask the Minister three questions. First, he said that this will not mean privatisation, but he also said that it would be possible for a sale or exchange of equity between the Post Office and private firms. Is not that a sort of privatisation, if private firms can invest in the Post Office and the Post Office in private firms?
Secondly, the Minister said that primary legislation will be needed to dispose of the Government's equity. Is it not possible, as in the case of BP, to dispose of that equity through a Finance Bill rather than a special Bill, because they are very different?
Thirdly, what is there to safeguard the Post Office pensioners and contributors from the same problems that the electricity supply pension scheme had, when pensioners' money was used to pay for redundancies made in that industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if I have not made it clear, let me now do so: this is not seen as a step towards privatisation. It will put in place a clear structure for the Post Office. There is no great virtue in debating whether an exchange of equity between two companies is or is not privatisation. I hope that we can all agree that if the Post Office—in a world which is seeing increasing internationalisation of the market—is to have a level playing field on which to compete against other post offices, it must be able to undertake that kind of operation. It is not the same as privatisation, because the equity will still be held on a majority basis by the Government and, therefore, it will be Government-owned.
The essential issue is that the Post Office should be able to take advantage of this opportunity. Primary legislation will be needed to sell the shares because that will be put into the Bill that sets up the plc.
1036
As far as the pension fund is concerned, I need to check, but I assume that the money in the pension fund belongs to the people who put it in and, therefore, cannot be taken out or penalised in any way.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the need to support rural services. I remind the Minister that in the industries that have been privatised, such as electricity, water and many others, there is always an obligation to provide a public service. To the villages that have post offices, they are not merely a convenience for those of us who happen to have motor cars but a necessity, especially for old age pensioners. If they live some distance from a town, old age pensioners would be at a grave disadvantage if their local post office closed. Will the Minister bear that in mind?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I take that point very seriously. Rural post offices are enormously important to their communities and the reason for that goes beyond simple commercial criteria. They are the foundation of many villages and their community life. I emphasise again that—for the first time—accessibility criteria will be included in the Bill and the regulators will have a responsibility to monitor their fulfilment. We cannot guarantee that post offices will not close, because they are private businesses and if the owners decide that they cannot continue we cannot necessarily put something in their place. We are well aware of the importance of rural sub-post offices. That is why we are specifying those criteria and will put in place, for the first time, a regulator outside Government who will monitor the network against that criteria.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his statement this afternoon. Perhaps I may ask him a couple of quick questions. He referred to the modern Post Office being formed in 1969, but I am sure that the Government will be aware that the history of the Post Office in this country goes back 350 years and it was 180 years ago that the penny black came into existence.
The statement says that the directors of the new Post Office plc will owe their duty to the company. That cannot be right. Surely they will owe their duty to the shareholders of the company, who are the 55 million British citizens in this country. The statement continues by mentioning joint ventures and strategic alliances with other companies. We can understand why those may be necessary in the modern, global market, but will the Minister assure us that any sale or exchange of equity will be limited, not wholesale?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, while it was right to pick on 1969 as the date when the modern Post Office was set up, I agree that it has a long history. When I sat on a commission in the late 70s to review the Post Office, a friend of mine produced a long list of all the commissions that had sat previously to review the Post Office. There is nothing new in the world, and the Post Office certainly has a long history. I would point to 1981 as a significant date, when the Post Office was separated from telecommunications.

1037
In plc law, the duty of the directors is to the company, and through the company to the shareholders. As the Post Office will be a publicly-owned company, the directors' duty will continue to be a duty to the Government and the people of this country. I confirm that any exchange of equity will be limited.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I apologise for not being here right at the beginning of the Minister's statement. I know that the regulator will protect consumer interests, but what will be the position of the new Post Office plc in relation to the fair trading legislation? Currently, the Post Office has wide exemptions as a public undertaking. Will it be subject to all the regulations, rules and provisions of the fair trading legislation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hesitate, especially with my noble friend Lord Borne sitting behind me, to make a statement on that point, but I can say that the regulator will have the powers to adjudicate on issues of fair competition, as well as his regulatory powers. I believe that that is the position for most of the regulators. I will check on that point and let your Lordships know if that is wrong.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the Minister kindly said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that the regulator is not to be a single individual but will be constituted as a commission. Is that a good sign that the Government will introduce a utilities regulation Bill in the near future? That idea comes from Labour, and is contrary to the model the Conservative government used, which constituted regulators as individuals. I hope that the new model will be extended to the other utilities so that they will have a commission or board to share the decision making.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is an idea whose time has come and it can be seen to be a sign of the way thinking is moving.

Employment Relations Bill
4.20 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [Collective Bargaining: Recognition]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 18, leave out lines 25 to 32 and insert—
("2A.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) The meaning of collective bargaining given by section 178(1) shall not apply.
(3) References to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays; but this has effect subject to sub-paragraph (4).
(4) If the parties agree matters as the subject of collective bargaining, references to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to the agreed matters; and this is the case whether the agreement is made before or after the time when the CAC issues a
1038
declaration, or the parties agree, that the union is (or unions are) entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not apply in construing paragraph 29(3).
(6) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) do not apply in construing paragraph 32.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to government Amendments Nos. 9 and 52 and then to respond in due course to Amendment No. 8 in the name of my noble friend Lord McCarthy.
The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to clarify the scope of collective bargaining and how it may be altered. We wanted it to be absolutely clear that even if the CAC issued a declaration of recognition, the union and employer could agree to alter the scope of collective bargaining to include matters other than pay, hours and holidays.
Amendment No. 52 clarifies the scope of collective bargaining in Part III of the schedule, which is the part that deals with changing the bargaining unit, by introducing new paragraph 74B. It also allows the parties to vary a bargaining method imposed by the CAC under Part III, in new paragraph 74C. This mirrors the existing provision in paragraph 29 for bargaining methods imposed under Part I.
I now turn to the issue of whether a union should be required to give up an existing collective bargaining agreement in order to apply for recognition under Part I. Amendment No. 8, to which my noble friend Lord McCarthy will speak, covers this point, as does the Government's Amendment No. 9. I shall not pre-empt anything my noble friend may say, but perhaps I may explain why the Government want to deal with this issue in a slightly different way from that proposed by my noble friend.
We have proposed Amendment No. 9 which changes one of the preliminary tests an application must pass in order for the CAC to accept it. The test currently requires the CAC to reject applications for recognition in a bargaining unit if any union, including the applicant union, is already recognised to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of one or more workers in the bargaining unit. One effect of this is to require a union which has a very limited but possibly long-standing recognition agreement—covering the union's role in disciplinary matters, for example—to give up that recognition in order to apply for statutory recognition under Part I.
That is not an unusual arrangement. In my own company, I recognised a union for disciplinary matters and such issues as the location of the business but not for pay, hours and holidays because my employees preferred to negotiate on these matters individually with me. The point is: should such recognition for what might be called "non-core" issues bar the union from seeking recognition through the procedure for pay, hours and holidays?
I do not think it is desirable for a union to be required to end a recognition agreement covering the "non-core" issues if both the employer and union are happy with it.

1039
The union should be able to seek recognition on the "core" issues of pay, hours and holidays without being forced first to tear up an existing agreement. Amendment No. 9 therefore provides that a voluntary agreement which does not include bargaining about pay, hours or holidays does not bar the recognised union from applying under Part I. The employer will, of course, still be able to terminate the voluntary agreement if he wishes. It may be that an employer, faced with an application for recognition on pay, hours and holidays, wants to renegotiate on the matters for which he already recognises the union. The Government's amendment allows for that. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Government have introduced this change or modification—I do not want to call it a "volte-face" because they may not like that—at a very late stage. We argued this point in Committee and the Minister said that we could not have it. Never mind, he now comes along and says that the Government will not function in such a way that unions which are recognised for matters other than wages, hours and conditions have to quarrel this away in order to negotiate about core conditions. To my colleagues and I in Committee, that seemed to be only common sense. If you have a Bill, the object of which is to encourage and assist recognition, you do not, as I said in Committee, operate pontoon; you do not say that people have to twist or bust. You say that if you have a little non-core recognition, you can come along and see whether you can get core recognition. If you do not get it, you still have what you had in the first place. You do not have to go back to square one.
In practice, I do not think that employers who have allowed a certain limited amount of recognition of the kind the Minister described in his own company will cancel it if their employees want to extend it. The real difficulty will be those employers who give no recognition at all, who would not be seen dead with recognition and where the union would have to come from a position of non-recognition to a position of core recognition. In that circumstance—I thank the Government for making a concession at this late stage—my amendment has no purpose because it was an attempt to get the Government to limit their existing position so that it applied only to new unions. The Government have come round to that. Therefore, my amendment has no purpose and I do not intend to move it. I thank the Government very much.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I intervene in the debate on this amendment for only one reason. It is right and proper—I am sure the Minister will indulge me—that at the very earliest possible moment of the Report stage I should get something off my chest.
This Bill began in the other place, but it was then completely recast by the government amendments, so that the Bill that left there was totally different in form from the one that had started. The Bill which your Lordships have been asked to deal with was therefore the Employment Relations Bill Mark II. The Government extensively amended the Bill in Committee so that we now have Mark III. However, some 48 hours
1040
before this present stage, the Government tabled some 16 pages of amendments to Schedule 1 alone, plus about another dozen spread around the Bill. So what we are really being asked to consider is the Employment Relations Bill Mark IV.
I certainly accept that several of the amendments that the Government have introduced at this stage are to honour pledges made to the Opposition at earlier stages; and for that I most certainly thank the noble Lord. I also appreciate the courtesy of the Minister and his staff in sending me part of the material "hot off the press", as it were. But what this really shows is that the Government are once again legislating on the hoof. That means that they are churning out ill considered Bills which they have to amend as they progress through Parliament, or as with an amendment that the Government will certainly be introducing later today, a year after an Act has received Royal Assent and three months after it has come into effect.
Having got that off of my chest, I add that some of those belated amendments may need a little further amendment. I have not had very much time to look at them, so where I have something to say, I shall try to indicate that. It may be that we shall have to deal later with any reservations that I am left with.
With regard to Amendment No. 1 itself, we have no objection to this further clarification of the meaning of "collective bargaining".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lord, I thank the noble Baroness for the typically courteous way in which she rebukes me. As I think I said in Committee, there are three kinds of government amendment. First, there are those which respond to points made at an earlier stage by the Opposition or indeed by Government Back-Benchers. Secondly, there are those which are tidying up amendments—it is not a political matter; it happens under all governments. Thirdly, there are those which mark changes in policy.
I fully accept the noble Baroness's point that it is undesirable for the third type of amendment to be introduced at a late stage. I apologise for the fact that that happens in some cases. It will happen in amendments put down for consideration today. We try to keep those to a minimum but we do not always win.
I thank my noble friend Lord McCarthy for his recognition that Amendment No. 9 achieves the point he made in Committee. That was what we intended. I do not apologise for the fact that we are flexible and listen to debate. That is, after all, the purpose of a revising Chamber. I commend Amendment No. 1.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 18, line 42, leave out ("21") and insert ("50")
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 26, 27, 55 and 56. The amendments are identical. They propose to increase the definition of a small business which is

1041
exempt from the provisions of the Bill requiring compulsory union recognition from one with fewer than 21 employees to one with fewer than 50.
I make no apology for bringing back the amendment. I believe that it is of vital importance to the stability of small businesses. Small businesses are constantly praised by the Government, in particular the incumbents of the office of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, of whom we are now on our third in just over two years. They acknowledge them as the potential engines of new enterprise and employment. Yet time after time their legislation ignores the difference between small businesses and large ones. Ever increasing administrative burdens are placed on them. I shall not take up your Lordships' time with a catalogue of those burdens because we are now debating another stumbling block being placed in their path—another disincentive to expansion for a small business which survives its dangerous first three years
The possibility imposed by the Act is that if the business has grown large enough to reach a small threshold in number of employees, it may then be faced with a demand for unionisation—a union which, if history is anything to follow, will want to alter the flexible working, multitasking and other processes of "mucking in" together which help those small business get off the ground.
Do not think that I decry the usefulness of unions in larger businesses. I believe that they are a useful tool, reducing the need for negotiating with individual employees and helping to smooth out problems when they arise. However, in the case of small businesses a union inevitably creates the atmosphere of "them" and "us" which does not happen when a handful of people work together. This is especially so when, in a business of the size the Government propose as the starting point, fewer than a dozen employees can impose their will on the other 10 who are probably working alongside them in the same building, if not in the same room.
When this amendment was discussed in another place, the Secretary of State agreed to take the power to alter the number from 21. Paragraph 6(6)(b) now gives him the powers to vary the number of workers. I optimistically assume this means that he concedes that it is possible for the Government to have got their numbers wrong and that the threshold of 21 may, as we predict, be just too low. On the other hand, the power may have been inserted merely to keep the Opposition quiet.
I am not happy to leave the matter in what I believe is an unsatisfactory state. This is especially so as the power to vary the number is so ambiguously worded that it means that the Secretary of State could reduce still further the figure of 21. Indeed, in his response to the debate on the amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey said—ominously, in my opinion,
"We acknowledge that it may have to vary in either direction. It could be too stringent or not stringent enough".—[Official Report, 7/6/99; col. 1174]
1042
In other words, having got their foot in the door with the figure of 21, the Government could reduce the figure to 11, five or even three. The Government have the power to vary the figure. There would seem no reason why they should not start at the more sensible and appropriate figure of 50. The reason I refer to an appropriate figure of 50 is because of the recommendation of the Commission of the European Union concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises which was dated 3rd May 1996. I shall paraphrase it and quote from it. It recorded that as long ago as 1990 the Commission had proposed to limit the proliferation of definitions in use in the Community. In 1992 it proposed a threshold of 50 employees for a small business, and 250 for a medium-sized business. The 1996 report states:
"Some programmes will fix very varied thresholds".
That is what the Government are doing in this Bill. The report continues:
"In a single market without internal frontiers, the treatment of enterprises must be set on a set of common rules".
Of all the criteria used for defining a small business including the turnover, the report says that,
"the number of employees is undoubtedly one of the most important and must be regarded as imperative".
That is from the preamble. The formal recommendation in Article 1 paragraph 2 states that,
"a 'small enterprise' is defined as an enterprise which has fewer than 50 employees".
That should be clear enough to the Government.
Because I do not wish to be accused of selective quoting, I point out that the same paragraph includes modifications to ensure that businesses with a high annual turnover, or large balance sheet net worth, or those which are not independent, do not fall into that definition. We on this side of the Chamber would not object if the Government were to accept the Commission's recommendation for the purposes of this Bill but in return applied the modifications proposed in the same paragraph.
In Article 3 of the same document, the Commission undertook to adapt the statistics it produces for various purposes under size classes of one to nine, 10 to 49, and 50 to 249 employees—and then two other categories with which we are not concerned today. The Fourth Council Directive, No. 78/660/EEC, has been amended to incorporate the criteria proposed in the recommendation. It will be no use for the Minister to tell us that the figure of 21, which I described to the Committee as seemingly having "been plucked from the air", is not related to small businesses and was chosen for some other reason.
I remind noble Lords that in the preamble to the recommendation the Commission decried the use of varied thresholds for different purposes. Only a year ago, in June 1998, in the Late Payment of Debts (Interest) Act, a small company was defined as one with fewer than 50 employees. Perhaps the Minister will explain the Government's different approach in the two Acts. What does that say as regards consistency? I told the Committee that despite the Government's claim to have consulted widely over the provision, the IOD, the EEF and the Small Business Bureau are not content with

1043
that figure. The Government have to pay at least as much attention to them, and to the European Commission, as they do to the unions. The proposals seem to be in breach of the EC directive by which we are bound. I beg to move.
Baroness Hogg: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. The Bill as draf:ed is peculiarly insensitive to the needs of small businesses, in particular small service businesses. I am concerned that the Bill does not seem to make a sufficient distinction between part-time and full-time employees. Small catering businesses, for example, may well at times employ over 20 part-timers but in real terms are small businesses with low turnover.
I refer to Amendment No. 2. The Bill appears to make it necessary for the number to exceed 20 on one day only because the line in the Bill ends with the word "or" rather than "and" before moving to the averaging proposal over 13 weeks. That seems to border on the ridiculous. I should be grateful for reassurance from the Minister.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I have declared an interest in this subject; I refer noble Lords to the Second Reading debate. I have businesses that would be affected by the Bill.
I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. She makes a compelling case, to which I do not have much to add. I have been involved in businesses that employed only a few people and in some that employed 200 or more. I do not believe that either figure is correct. If there is to be compulsion—I do not like that anywhere—my instinct is that somewhere in the region of 80-plus might be a suitable figure for union recognition.
It must be acknowledged that much that emanates from the European Community attracts distrust, and even hatred, among the fraternity of small businesses. However one aspect, of the EC that small businesses admire, and would like to see developed further, is the single market. My noble friend made a particularly important point when she said that recommendations from the EC about the definition that support and enhance the workings of the single market should be encouraged. I support the amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this amendment. As the Government have said on many occasions, it is important that we do not do anything to hinder either the start-up or the growth of small businesses. They are the key and the major employers in the country. Small businesses are delicate flowers, and it takes little to disrupt the investment for growth and development that is the necessary to our future economic success. This is an important amendment and I hope that the Government will support it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, this may be a point of order, although I am not sure whether we have such things in this place. Is this not a waste of time? These
1044
amendments are virtually the same as those about which we had a long and protracted debate in Committee. Is it right that we should go over the same ground twice?
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are at Report stage. There are strict rules governing what happens at Third Reading, but, unfortunately, there are much less clear rules about what follows between the Committee and Report stages. It was interesting to hear again the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I had heard them before and I had read them. However, she was able to remind noble Lords who did not pay the attention that I did to her speech in Committee about her concerns.
Before I move on to the substance of her amendments, I must correct a misapprehension that the noble Baroness has about the operation of the 21-worker limit. She laboured under that misapprehension in Committee and she continues to do so today. On 7th June, she said:
"The employer must recognise the union if a mere nine employees—40 per cent of the workforce—requires it and the majority vote in support. In other words, if only three bother to vote, it would take just two votes to approve.".—[Official Report, 17/6/99; col. 1161.]
That is not correct. It must be my fault because I have not explained properly the workings of a recognition ballot.
In order for a union to win a recognition ballot, a minimum of 40 per cent of all workers must vote in favour of recognition—I repeat, they must not just vote, but vote in favour. Therefore, if there are 21 workers, at least nine of them must vote in favour of recognition. If only three people bother to vote, the union will not be recognised. The union must also gain the majority of the votes. Therefore, if 10 workers are in favour and 11 are against, the ballot will be lost and recognition will not be granted.
I return to the issue of a threshold for small businesses. A fundamental reason for having a statutory scheme for union recognition is to provide a means for workers to be represented collectively by a trade union when they wish it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, does not like that; he has said it before and he said it again today. I appreciate his point of view, but that is what the Bill is about. There is a strong argument that the right to be collectively represented should not be subject to any threshold. Some of my noble friends agree with that argument: they take the view that the situation should be the same as that which pertains to health and safety legislation. It does not have any threshold for small businesses—for rather obvious reasons.
There is a further argument that employment relations in the smallest businesses are different—more personal and less formal—and that statutory collective bargaining is inappropriate in such cases. We listened to both sides and we were persuaded that the smallest firms are, on the whole, different. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with collective bargaining in these firms: some small firms already recognise unions. I told your Lordships in Committee and again today of my

1045
experience in this area. There is nothing to stop such businesses continuing to recognise unions if they so wish.
We accept that to apply the statutory provisions to firms with 20 or fewer workers could be onerous and inappropriate. That is why we propose the threshold at that level. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, now as much as I did in Committee when she suggested that there must be a single threshold for all purposes. I have already given the example of health and safety legislation, where I think everyone would agree that there should be no threshold. There are much higher thresholds for works councils under European legislation. There is no reason why there should not be thresholds of 20, 50 or 80—as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, advocates on this occasion—for different purposes. There is nothing magical about any of those figures.
The noble Baroness asked whether we had consulted about the matter and she pointed out that the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors, in particular, oppose the threshold of 20. I note that she did not mention the Confederation of British Industry. In any case, the fact that she was able to support her argument by referring to those organisations proves that we consulted fully.
Of course, this figure—any figure—is arbitrary to some extent. The noble Baroness suggested 50 employees, but a firm with 50 employees is a much more substantial undertaking. In many branches of activity, a firm with 50 employees would be considered to be a medium or even a large business—I think particularly of agriculture or retailing. A restaurant or a hotel with 50 employees—I return to the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Cavendish of Furness—is not a minnow in the hospitality industry. A business of that size must, of necessity, have a more developed personnel function.
We have proposed a realistic, fair and workable solution. However, if that proves not to be the case, as a last resort the Bill confers the power to vary the figure upwards or downwards if that is shown to be necessary. The noble Baroness said that the Bill now contains that power and that that is some sort of admission on our part. However, the Bill has contained that power from the beginning and it was envisaged initially in the White Paper. We are talking about excluding 8.1 million people—or about 31 per cent of the total workforce—from the statutory recognition provisions in this Bill. I think that we have demonstrated, both in Committee and on this occasion, that that is reasonable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, asked about the calculation of 21 workers. If the numbers fluctuate, workers may find it difficult to know whether a firm employs 21 people on a given day. The Bill proposes two tests: either the employer has 21 workers on the day that the application is received; or the firm had an average of 21 workers over the preceding 13 weeks. The situation is more complicated than the noble Baroness seems to believe. That test is outlined in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. It aims to ensure that an employer
1046
who gets word that an application is about to be submitted cannot avoid recognition by sacking enough workers to get below the threshold for a few days. I do not think the noble Baroness would wish to encourage such a practice.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The fact that the word "or" appears means that they would have only to choose a day on which employment was over that number for the full panoply of the Bill to apply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unfortunately, employers have the power to decide how many people work for a business; employees do not. Therefore, it cannot be sauce for the goose in the same way as sauce for the gander. No, we have given full consideration to the matter and reached the right conclusion. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister will not be surprised to know that I am disappointed with his response. Incidentally, I am grateful to him for pointing out my mistake in the number needed to start the whole procedure. However, I do not believe that he has dealt with my problems. I have never mentioned in this House that I started my own small business. I had to do this kind of thing, it would never have got off the ground and expanded into three countries. It is only right that I should test the opinion of the House.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Addison, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ailsa, M.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Coleraine, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Coleridge, L.

Annaly, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Courtown, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cox, B.

Attlee, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cross, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V.

Bell, L.

Denham, L.

Biddulph, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Biffen, L.

Dundee, E.

Birdwood, L.

Dundonald, E.

Blatch, B.

Dunleath, L.

Bowness, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Fookes, B.

Buscombe, B.

Gainford, L.

Cadman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glentoran, L.

Carnock, L.

Gormanston, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Gray, L.

1047

Harding of Petherton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Harlech, L.

Northesk, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Hayhoe, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Onslow of Woking, L.

Higgins, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hogg, B.

Park of Manmouth, B.

Holderness, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rees, L.

Hooper, B.

Renton, L.

Howe, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renwick, L.

Keyes, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Kintore, E.

Romney, E.

Kitchener, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

St Davids, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Seccombe, B.

Long, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lucas. L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strafford, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McConnell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swansea, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tenby, V.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Milverton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vivian, L.

Monson, L.

Waddington, L.

Montrose, D.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Morris, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mountevans, L.

Westbury, L.

Munster, E.

Wharton, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wynford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton. L.

Falkland, V.

Addington, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Alli, L.

Fitt, L.

Amos, B.

Geraint, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Goodhart, L.

Bach, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hacking, L.

Borrie. L.

Halsbury, E.

Bragg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Brookman, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Burlison, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Calverley, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Carlisle, E.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

Hayman, B.

Christopher, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Crawley, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

David, B.

Jay of Paddinigton, B.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Davies of Oldham, L.

Desai, L.

Jeger, B.

Dholakia, L.

Judd, L.

Dixon, L.

Kennet, L.

Donoughue, L.

Laming, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Levy, L.

Dubs, L.

Longford, E.

Evans of Watford, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ezra, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

1048

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller.]

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Russell, E.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

McNair.L.

Sandberg, L.

McNally, L.

Sawyer, L.

Maddock, B.

Serota, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sewel, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shepherd, L.

Methuen, L

Simon, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L

Molloy, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Monkswell, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, E

Newby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thornton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Thurso, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Puttnam, L.

Uddin, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Razzall, L.

Warner, L.

Rea, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 19, line 20, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b) there shall be excluded from the number of persons classified as "workers"—

(a) directors or any company secretary or other officers or manager of a limited company,

(b) shareholders in any private limited company or company whose shares are not quoted on any recognised stock exchange, and

(c) members of a partnership.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, having considered the argument made by the Government in Committee when they rejected this amendment, I feel that I have no alternative but to bring it to the attention of your Lordships again.
The amendment excludes from the definition of workers the directors, the company secretary and any other persons who are regarded as officers of the company. There can be no logical reason to include such persons in the quorum required to trigger the recognition procedure. That is even true in the case of a small company with, say, three directors and a company secretary, which would represent 20 per cent of the target figure of 21 proposed in the Bill.
It is equally illogical if the company secretary is, as so often happens, an outside accountant who has nothing to do with the operation of the company, except to sign a couple of forms every year. Logic does not enter the Government's ambitions. The more people, however irrelevant, who can be counted as workers, the greater chance there is for an ambitious trade union organiser to try to reach the magic figure. That is likely to be a two-edged sword because the board of a company that is inclined to resist union recognition would presumably vote against it in the ballot so that the union starts off with an assured X number of votes against it. However, far be it from me to tell the union how to manage to obtain votes!
The amendment refers also to shareholders, specifically in the private company or one that is not quoted on the Stock Exchange. That would be a case where employees have helped to finance the business for which they work by acquiring shares in it. They are, in effect, part owners. They are no different from minority partners in a business which is not a limited company. Even the Government do not consider that individual owners working in their own business are employees for the purposes of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, argued that only officers of the company who had a contract of employment were workers for the purposes of the Bill. He went on to say:
"I am sure that the noble Baroness is not arguing that those who have contracts of employment should be excluded from the head count implied in the cut-off point of 21".
I must apologise to the Minister for not having made myself clear on the previous occasion. That was precisely what I was arguing.
The noble Lord has told us on several occasions about his experiences when he was engaged in his own market research business. Perhaps as a director with or without a contract he may have regarded himself as one of the workers. Perhaps as a long-term honorary principal of the London Working Men's College that may possibly have coloured his thinking on the subject. I am sure that he held that position with the greatest of honour.
I said "Working Men's College" and not "Working Persons' College". I cannot resist saying that in view of an amendment that I tabled in Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me assure the noble Baroness that the letterhead of the Working Men's College and the sign outside say the "Working Men's College for Men and Women". The original title was formed in 1854 and there would have been some disquiet if we had changed it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. That ties in with how I tried to change the word "chair" to "chairman" in the Greater London Authority Bill because I consider the word "chairman" as all embracing. I am glad that it is all embracing in the Working Men's College.
Notwithstanding what a model employer the noble Lord undoubtedly was, I do not imagine that his employees regarded him as just another member of the
1050
staff. He was the boss and they did what he told them—at least I should imagine that they did. That is the real test of who or who is not a worker. Are you the teller or the "tellee"? The same applies to the hundreds of thousands of directors of the hundreds of thousands of small family businesses around the country whose directors do not consider themselves workers, and whose employees, without knowing the niceties of the existence of employment contracts, would laugh if you described a director as one of the workers.
I was only too right—as I often am!—to want to treat directors with or without a contract of employment as not being employees for the purposes of the Bill. I stress for the purposes of the Bill alone. In February the Court of Appeal in the case of the Secretary of State for Industry v. Bottrill said that whether an employer and employee relationship existed could be decided only by having regard to all the relevant facts. If an individual had a controlling shareholding, that was a fact that was likely to be significant in all situations and sometimes may be decisive. On the other hand, the industrial tribunal had held that the fact that Mr Bottrill had a contract made him an employee. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision against the Secretary of State on the facts of that case.
Why do I mention a case that seems to contradict my argument on this amendment? We have the Secretary of State vigorously arguing before the Court of Appeal at the expense of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money while attempting to save a disproportionately few pounds for the redundancy fund, that a director, even with a contract of employment, is not an employee.
Now the Minister argues exactly the opposite. If the Minister is right, we could have a situation in a company with two directors where one is treated as an employee and the other is not. That would be ludicrous. The Court of Appeal said that every case depended upon the relevant circumstances.
Here we want absolute certainty and consistency. We do not want the question of whether there should or should not be a ballot to depend upon the outcome of a piece of litigation between the employer and the union and the view that the court takes on the facts of that director's status. In this case we can have that certainty by saying that, with or without a contract, a director is not to be counted as a worker. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether, if there were a ballot in a small firm with a family worker who is a director—not a worker—and that director was to vote for union recognition, that would be the most comprehensive argument in favour of union recognition in that firm.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Viscount. My Front Bench was talking to me and I did not hear what he said. I am sure that he would not say anything that was incorrect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that I can act as intermediary.

1051
Perhaps I said something in Committee that could have led to confusion. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that persons who do not have a contract of employment do not count as workers. The relevant definition which I mentioned is the one in Section 296 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992. The definition of worker in that Act includes those with contracts of employment, but also,
"an individual who works or normally works or seeks to work … under any other contract whereby he undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract who is not a professional client of his".
In other words, some people who do not have contracts of employment count as workers.
I am sorry to see that the noble Baroness has tabled Amendment No. 4 because that means that she was not convinced by my arguments, or perhaps she did not understand my arguments—both of which are my fault—that such an amendment is quite unnecessary. I understand her concern that an inventive union organiser may try to establish that the directors of a company are workers, but the definition of a worker in the 1992 Act is clear: directors of a company are not workers unless they have contracts of employment or other contracts bringing them within the definition that I have read out.
Most directors, and particularly non-executive directors, will not normally be workers. However, where they do have such contracts it would surely be wrong in principle not to include them in the count. Surely that works both ways. From the union's point of view, you want to get up to the 21 workers and in a tiny minority of cases, just to the threshold. But, from the union's point of view, surely you do not want to have—this is the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—people who, because they are directors and also workers, will inevitably vote against recognition. The noble Baroness, I think, is arguing against her own case. The point I want to make is that the commonsense definition which the noble Baroness wants is already part of the 1992 Act which was enacted under the government of her party.
Similarly, the question of share ownership is not relevant to who counts as a worker. No one qualifies as a worker of a company simply by virtue of holding shares in it. The noble Baroness's amendment would mean that any employee who did hold shares in the business would not count as a worker for the purposes of the schedule. I cannot see why employees who participate in a share scheme should lose their rights to take part in a ballot on union recognition. Again, the argument seems to be against the noble Baroness's own interest. If you exclude those who rake part in an employee share ownership scheme, you are going to exclude people who might be inclined to support the management.
In a small family business, family members helping out may or may not count as workers. That would depend on the basis on which they worked. The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, is not in her place, but I am responding in part to what she said on the previous amendment. It would depend on whether they were paid or purely voluntary, the frequency and regularity with
1052
which they worked, and so on. If they are workers, surely they should count towards the threshold. People should not be deprived of their rights simply because they work in a family business. But if they are not workers as defined, they will not count.
Finally, members of a partnership do not normally count as workers, since they do not have contracts of or for employment. They are the owners of the business. Some partnerships do have a category of "partners" who receive a salary. The John Lewis Partnership is usually given as an example, although those shares in the business are held in a trust and the so-called "partners" do not own the business but are employees. 'The "partners" who receive a salary are generally accepted to have a different status from "real" partners. Again, the existing definition is good enough.
I hope that in the light of this further explanation, the noble Baroness will accept that the definition of "worker" in the Bill, which comes from previous legislation over a period of time, is perfectly adequate for the purpose and that she will withdraw her Amendment No. 4.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister had no need to take the blame or to think that I had not understood his response properly because he had not explained it properly the first time. I am quite sure that he explained it very well the first time and he has explained it very well the second lime. I do not really want to accept it, but I certainly will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 22, line 23, at end insert—
("Notice to cease consideration of application
15A.—(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC has received an application under paragraph 10 or 11 and—

(a) it has not decided whether the application is admissible, or

(b) it has decided that the application is admissible.

(2) No further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule if, before the final event occurs, the parties give notice to the CAC that they want no further steps to be taken.
(3) The final event occurs when the first of the following occurs—

(a) the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 20(2) in consequence of the application;

(b) the last day of the notification period ends; and the notification period is that defined by paragraph 22(5) and arising from the application.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendment No. 5 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 24, 25, 28, 29, 53 and 54. I apologise for the delay in tabling these amendments. The idea behind them is relatively straightforward, but we have to do some very careful checking to make sure that there are no unintended or unhelpful consequences.
Let me start by repeating what I said in Committee. The Government intends to exclude from the scope of Part II any purely voluntary agreement, including all

1053
agreements made before Schedule 1 comes into force. Part II, which refers to voluntary agreements, will apply only to those agreements made in consequence of an application for recognition under paragraph 3 of Part I. These are referred to as "agreements for recognition" in our amendments. In essence, these agreements will be binding on the employer for three years. After three years, the employer will be able to derecognise the union without having to apply to the CAC, just as if the union had been recognised voluntarily.
We believe this change is necessary and desirable for several reasons. It closes a loophole by which an employer could agree recognition, perhaps after a union's application had been accepted by the CAC and a bargaining unit determined, and then derecognise the union. In this way an employer could avoid recognition even if all his workers were union members. So these amendments would make "semi-voluntary" recognition binding for three years, just as statutory recognition is binding for at least three years.
By providing a union with some security in a recognition agreement, and by providing the employer with more flexibility to derecognise than does statutory recognition, this change will promote voluntary—or perhaps I should say semi-voluntary—agreements. If the parties can reach agreement without a ballot, perhaps with the help of ACAS or the CAC, or after the bargaining unit has been determined, they do not need to go through the entire statutory recognition process—involving balloting and so on—in Part I.
We have also provided a procedure whereby an employer or union can complain to the CAC that a bargaining method agreed after recognition has not been followed. If the CAC finds that this is indeed the case, it will be able to impose a bargaining method. This will apply whether the original recognition was via the statutory process in Part I or was an agreement for semi-voluntary recognition under Part II. Wholly voluntary agreements will not be affected.
Turning to the text of the amendments, Amendment No. 5 requires the CAC to cease work on an application for recognition if the parties request it to do so. This is a prerequisite for semi-voluntary recognition, but it is also a commonsense clarification. Amendment No. 7 allows an employer or a union to apply for a bargaining method to be determined if the union was recognised under Part I; an equivalent for semi-voluntarily recognised unions is inserted by Amendment No. 25. Amendment No. 24 first sets out, in the new paragraph 40, the detail of what constitutes semi-voluntary recognition, and secondly provides, in the new paragraphs 41 and 41A, for the necessary interpretative provisions. It thirdly provides, in paragraph 41B, a procedure for resolving disputes about whether recognition is semi-voluntary, and finally sets out in paragraph 41C, the consequences of semi-voluntary recognition. Paragraph 41D ensures that bargaining arrangements are ended if recognition is ended.
Amendment No. 25 provides a period in which a semi-voluntarily recognised union and an employer may seek to agree a bargaining method without the involvement of the CAC, as well as a procedure for the
1054
imposition of a method by the CAC if either party fails to carry out the agreed method. Amendment No. 28 ensures that the procedure may be used only by independent unions, and Amendment No. 29 prohibits the unilateral withdrawal of an application for an agreed method if the CAC is required to determine a method.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 make a change to Part IV, the derecognition provisions, which is consequential to the changes to Part II. Because derecognition of a semi-voluntarily recognised union is not allowed for three years, but can be done at any time thereafter, it is necessary to remove semi-voluntary recognition from the scope of Part II. That is what Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 seek to do.
These amendments make important changes, which I flagged up when we considered Part II of Schedule 1, to the way in which the schedule deals with voluntary recognition. Genuine voluntary agreements will fall outside the scope of Part II, but voluntary agreements made as a result of applications under Part I will be more attractive to employers and unions. These are changes which we have considered at length and we believe they are of benefit to all parties. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it is very difficult for us to know how to react to these amendments because they are, as the Minister himself said, extremely complicated and they come at very short notice. It is extremely difficult to trace through and see precisely what is left of the old Part II. One cannot say that it is subject to subsequent correction and change because this is the last moment. If we get this amendment wrong now and we do not complain about it now, we shall not have another opportunity to do so because here we are in the upper House at Report stage.
Nevertheless, as I understand it—indeed, as the Minister explained it—this is far better than the pseudo-monster of Part II, which is on the face of the Bill. I was always against Part II. I could never gain an honest admission from people that they had invented it or that it was their idea. No one would say who asked for it; it just appeared. It was supposed to be there because unions had complained about the non-enforcement of their collective agreements by employers.
The first objection to that view is that, when you investigate what unions are complaining about, it invariably turns out that they are not complaining about the non-observance or non-enforcement of a written, formal agreement; they are talking about employers taking back customs and practices which were never put in writing and which we never really agreed at all. They are complaining about sudden, immediate acts of management authority. They have not got it written down and do not have protection, but they think they have. Therefore, I was always extremely sceptical that they would get much out of this.
Secondly, if the unions did challenge, what they were being asked to do under the Part II now in the Bill was to turn their existing agreement, or some other construction of it, into a legally enforceable document. But no one would have wanted that. We do not have

1055
any legally-enforceable collective agreements in this country. That is not the tradition; it is not the method. That is part of the problem about the way that this Bill seeks to enforce recognition. However, I shall leave that point aside for the moment. So, if this were taken seriously by employers, unions would suddenly find that they were being asked to accept all kinds of legally enforceable restrictions on, for example, their relations with their shop stewards or their members or, indeed, on the use of industrial action. They would not want that anyway on the second ground.
Thirdly, if it ever came to the point of the CAC wanting an existing agreement to be legally enforceable and beefed up in some way and the employer did not like it, the obvious reaction for the sensible employer would be to derecognise the union. We would have a rash of derecognitions if ever the unions sought to put the pseudo-barmy Part II into effect. Therefore, the fact that that has gone cannot be a bad thing; indeed, it is an entirely good thing. I regard it as the second great concession which has been made this afternoon and am grateful for it.
However, why do we not just abolish it? Why have we thought up another pseudo-Part II to put in its place? It is possible that I do not understand it because it has been put forward at the last minute. Therefore, I have a few questions for my noble friend the Minister. I understand—I am sure I have this bit right—that it is confined to applicants for recognition; in other words, it cannot affect anyone who does not apply.
Secondly, it applies where you have gone for recognition because the employer will not grant you this, but you have not got the ballot and you have not had a CAC declaration which will turn itself into a "method", whatever this is, and be enforced. Indeed, if you had got that far, this part of the system would not apply. It also applies if one party signs what I believe my noble friend called a "semi-voluntary" or "partly-voluntary" agreement but the other party doubts whether there is in fact an agreement. So you can go to the CAC and it will determine whether the agreement which was signed is really an agreement. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which this would arise; but never mind.
The other occasion when it arises is where one party says, "We have got an agreement but the other party is not carrying it out". If I have got it right, those are the circumstances. I have several points to make. First, I find it impossible to envisage such a situation ever arising in the real world. Employers who refuse to recognise, and who take themselves to the stage where they appear before the CAC which makes an award against them, will not suddenly recognise half-way through, sign what actually turns out not to be a proper agreement and then fail to observe it. This is a world about which I know nothing at all. As I said, I cannot envisage such a situation arising. But, never mind, if it does not arise, you might say that it does not matter.
However, it is not clear to me what happens if it should arise. What answers are given by the CAC? Let us suppose that such a situation did arise and one party, perhaps a union, goes to the CAC and says, "This
1056
agreement is not an agreement". What does the CAC do? It may give a declaration, but are there any sanctions behind this? Do you then move on to a legally enforceable method? Does the CAC then write the agreement because the agreement in question turns out not to be an agreement? That is not very clear to me. On the other hand, let us suppose that it is an agreement and the problem is that it is not being carried out. What is the sanction? If the CAC decides that the agreement exists, that it is a good one but that it is not being carried out, what is the sanction? Is it the same old sanction that appears in other parts of the Bill; that is to say, "specific performance"? Do we go back to a situation in which the CAC puts in what is in effect a legally enforceable agreement and then, if the employer does not take notice, the union can, so to speak, go to court and seek to impose it on him because he is breaking a contract and it can get "specific performance"?
If that is the case, what have we added? What have we done? What would be different if we took this provision away? If there were another sanction at this stage—for example, one that the Government had rejected, like compulsory arbitration—that would be saying something different. But I do not think that that is here and I do not see it in the Bill. Frankly, having got rid of the old Part II, I am not convinced that we need the new Part II at all.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure my noble friend on one point immediately. When a totally new amendment is introduced on Report, it is perfectly proper under the conventions of the House for any noble Lord to table an amendment to that amended part of the Bill on Third Reading. It will inevitably be new material and there would be no difficulty in that respect. However, my noble friend's argument is much more detailed than that. Perhaps I may try to reassure him, although I do not know whether I can cover all the possibilities that he envisaged in his speech.
My noble friend is quite right in his first assumption. These amendments and Part II are about applicants for recognition; in other words, those who have made an application for recognition under paragraph 3 of Part I and started off the statutory procedure. My noble friend then went on to ask whether these are cases where there has been no ballot or where the procedure has not been completed. The easiest way to describe it is to say that it will apply where the procedure for statutory recognition has been started but has been aborted by the employer agreeing recognition, perhaps after a union's application had been accepted by the CAC and a bargaining unit determined, although it could be aborted at quite a number of different stages. Then, under the provisions of the Bill, without these amendments and with the statutory procedure having been aborted, the employer could derecognise the union. In that way, the employer could avoid recognition even if all his workers were union members. That is why we have brought in the semi-voluntary procedure.

1057
My noble friend also asked about sanctions and suggested a number of alternatives. The sanction here is that a semi-voluntary recognition is binding for three years, just as is the case with statutory recognition. We believe that to be an effective and appropriate sanction.
Part II will apply only where there has been a formal application under Part I and the parties reach agreement for recognition without a ballot or membership count; for example, the employer and the union may disagree only about the bargaining unit. But once that has been settled by the CAC, they may be able to agree recognition.
The point of these amendments is to ensure that the employer can be held to that recognition for three years and the agreement enforced, if necessary, through the imposed procedure, as recognition under Part I can. My noble friend has far more experience than I of whether this is likely to happen on the ground, but I hope he will agree that this was a loophole—at least in theory—and that what we have done to Part II closes that loophole and—as I think he acknowledges—is an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 23, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 and insert—
("(2) Within the decision period the CAC must decide whether the application is invalid within the terms of paragraphs 38A to 38H.
(3) In deciding whether the application is invalid, the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).
(4) If the CAC decides that the application is invalid—

(a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,

(b) the CAC must not proceed with the application, and

(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.

(5) If the CAC decides that the application is not invalid it must—

(a) proceed with the application, and

(b) give notice to the parties that it is so proceeding.

(6) The decision period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after that on which the parties agree an appropriate bargaining unit or the CAC decides an appropriate bargaining unit, or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12 to 23, 49, 51, 60 to 69 and 80. All of these amendments deal with how the CAC handles applications. There are three main subjects covered by them, all of which are interlinked: the reapplication of preliminary tests, three-year bars on repeat applications and clarification of the derecognition procedures.
At present, preliminary tests are applied by the CAC when it receives an application for recognition. The tests are set out in paragraphs 30 to 38 and are applied by
1058
paragraph 14. Some of them are intended to rule out applications which would disrupt other bargaining arrangements by imposing statutory recognition on top of them. However, if the bargaining unit changes during the process, under paragraph 16 or 17, the tests need to be reapplied to ensure that no existing collective bargaining arrangements are affected.
Amendment No. 6 provides for the preliminary tests relating to a particular bargaining unit to be reapplied if the bargaining unit changes, and Amendment No. 20 gives the tests themselves. Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 21, 22 and 23 are consequential to Amendments Nos. 6 and 20.
Turning to the issue of three-year bars on repeat applications, I should like to draw attention to what the Government set out in the White Paper, Fairness at Work:
"New applications for recognition or de-recognition will not be considered by the CAC until three years after the date on which a previous application was determined".
That is set out in paragraph 4.18 on page 25.
A three-year bar on reapplications for recognition after a failed request and on applications for derecognition after a successful application for recognition has been in the schedule since it was first introduced in another place. Amendment No. 18 will mean that successful applications for derecognition bar recognition of the same union in respect of that bargaining unit for three years; Amendments Nos. 15 and 19 are consequential to it. Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 63 and 67 bar reapplications for derecognition for three years after an unsuccessful application; Amendments Nos. 62, 64 and 69 are consequential.
Amendment No. 80 concerns the three routes by which an employer may seek derecognition: having fewer than 21 workers, a "standard" procedure and a procedure for use if the union was recognised via the "automatic" recognition procedure in paragraph 20. The schedule does not currently make any provision for dealing with multiple applications. The amendment would give the Secretary of State power to direct the CAC as to the order in which competing applications for derecognition should be treated by the CAC. The Government intend that an employer should have to choose a single ground on which to apply for derecognition, rather than being able to run several applications simultaneously or consecutively. The other amendment of substance in this group is Amendment No. 51 which makes explicit provision for the withdrawal of applications under Part III. This is equivalent to the provision in Part I, paragraph 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 28, line 21, at end insert—
("Method not carried out
29A.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC issues a declaration under this Part of this Schedule that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit,

(b) the parties agree a method by which they will conduct collective bargaining, and

(c) one or more of the parties fails to carry out the agreement.

(2) The parties may apply to the CAC for assistance.
(3) Paragraph 29 applies as if "paragraph 28" (in each place) read "paragraph 28 or paragraph 29A".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 28, line 33, at end insert—
("(1A) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to an application under paragraph 10 or 11 if—

(a) the union (or unions) recognised tinder the collective agreement and the union (or unions) making the application under paragraph 10 or 11 are the same, and

(b) the matters in respect of which the union is (or unions are) entitled to conduct collective bargaining do not include pay, hours or holidays.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 28, line 35, leave out ("64(3)") and insert ("66(1)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 36, 39, 40, 57, 58, 59, 78 and 79. These amendments all correct cross-references and grammatical errors. Only two are of any real substance, but all are necessary. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 correct a cross-reference, while Amendments Nos. 36, 39 and 40 are grammatical. Amendments Nos. 57 and 59 correct another cross-reference; Amendment No. 58 corrects a third.
The two amendments of any substance are Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. These refer to the power of the CAC to request the Secretary of State to amend the automatic recognition procedure and the power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the CAC on how automatic recognition should operate. The present text refers to the procedure in paragraph 20, which is in Part I of the schedule. However, there is an equivalent provision in Part III, in paragraph 70. Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 allow the CAC to comment on the operation of the procedure in both parts and for the Secretary of State to issue guidance which applies to both. paragraph 20 and paragraph 70. So these amendments are purely for consistency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh, of Haringey Lord McIntosh, of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 25:
Page 28, line 37, leave out ("64(3)") and insert ("66(1)")
Page 29, line 32, leave out (", and") and insert ('or proceeds under paragraph 18 with an application relating to a bargaining unit,
(aa) the application has not been withdrawn,
(ab) no notice has been given under paragraph 15A(2),")
Page 29, line 34, at end insert (", and
(c) no notification has been made under paragraph 22(2)")
Page 29, line 46, after ('unit") insert ("or proceeds under paragraph 18 with an application relating to a bargaining unit")
Page 30, line 10, after ("37") insert ("or 37A")
Page 30, line 1. after ("declaration") insert ("under paragraph 27(4)")
1060
Page 30, line 13, at end insert ("; and this is so whether the ballot concerned is held under this Part or Part III of this Schedule")
Page 30, line 24, at end insert—
("37A.—(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 99(3) that bargaining arrangements are to cease to have effect; and this is so whether the ballot concerned is held under Part IV or Part V of this Schedule.
(2) An application under paragraph 10 or 11 is not admissible if—

(a) the application is made within the period of 3 years starting with the day after that on which the declaration was issued.

(b) the relevant bargaining unit is the same or substantially the same as the bargaining unit to which the bargaining arrangements mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) relate, and

(c) the application is made by the union which was a party (or unions which were parties) to the proceedings leading to the declaration.

(3) The relevant bargaining unit is—

(a) the proposed bargaining unit, where the application is under paragraph 10(2) or 11(2);

(b) the agreed bargaining unit, where the application is tinder paragraph 11(4).")

Page 30, line 25, leave out ("and 37") and insert ("to 37A")
Page 30, line 28, at end insert—
("General provisions about validity
38A.—(1) Paragraphs 38B to 38H apply if the CAC has to decide under paragraph 18 whether an application is valid.
(2) In those paragraphs—

(a) references to the application in question are to that application, and

(b) references to the relevant bargaining unit are to the bargaining unit agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC.

38B.—(1) The application in question is invalid if the CAC is satisfied that there is already in force a collective agreement under which a union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of any workers falling within the relevant bargaining unit.
(2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to the application in question if—

(a) the union (or unions) recognised under the collective agreement and the union (or unions) making the application in question are the same, and

(b) the matters in respect of which the union is (or unions are) entitled to conduct collective bargaining do not include pay, hours or holidays.

(3) An agreement for or declaration of recognition which is the subject of a declaration under paragraph 66(1) must for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) be treated as ceasing to have effect on the making of the declaration under paragraph 66(1).
(4) In applying sub-paragraph (1) an agreement for recognition (the agreement in question) must be ignored if—

(a) the union does not have (or none of the unions has) a certificate under section 6 that it is independent,

(b) at some time there was an agreement (the old agreement) between the employer and the union under which the union (whether alone or with other unions) was recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers which was the same or substantially the same as the group covered by the agreement in question, and

(c) the old agreement ceased to have effect in the period of three years ending with the date of the agreement in question.

(5) It is for the CAC to decide whether one group of workers is the same or substantially the same an another, but in deciding the CAC may take account of the views of any person it believes has an interest in the matter.
38C. The application in question is invalid unless the CAC decides that—

(a) members of the union (or unions) constitute at least 10 per cent of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit, and

(b) a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union (or unions) as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit.

38D.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 10 or 11 relating to a bargaining unit or proceeds under paragraph 18 with an application relating to a bargaining unit,

(b) the application has not been withdrawn,

(c) no notice has been given under paragraph 15A(2),

(d) the CAC has not issued a declaration under paragraph 20(2), 25(2), 27(3) or 27(4) in relation to that bargaining unit, and

(e) no notification has been made under paragraph 22(2). (2).

(2) The application in question is invalid if—

(a) at least one worker falling within the relevant bargaining unit also falls within the bargaining unit referred to in sub-paragraph (1), and

(b) the application in question is made by a union (or unions) other than the union (or unions) which made the application referred to in sub-paragraph (1).

38E.—(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 10 or 11 relating to a bargaining unit or proceeds under paragraph 18 with an application relating to a bargaining unit.
(2) The application in question is invalid if—

(a) the application is made within the period of 3 years starting with the day after that on which the CAC gave notice of acceptance of the application mentioned in sub-paragraph (1),

(b) the relevant bargaining unit is the same or substantially the same as the bargaining unit mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), and

(c) the application is made by the union (or unions) which made the application mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).

(3) This paragraph does not apply if paragraph 38F or 38G applies.
38F.—(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 27(4) that a union is (or unions are) not entitled to be recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit; and this is so whether the ballot concerned is held under this Part or Part III of this Schedule.
(2) The application in question is invalid if—

(a) the application is made within the period of 3 years starting with the date of the declaration,

(b) the relevant bargaining unit is the same or substantially the same as the bargaining unit mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), and

(c) the application is made by the union (or unions) which made the application leading to the declaration.

38G.—(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 99(3) that bargaining arrangements are to cease to have effect; and this is so whether the ballot concerned is held under Part IV or Part V of this Schedule.
(2) The application in question is invalid if—

(a) the application is made within the period of 3 years starting with the day after that on which the declaration was issued,

(b) the relevant bargaining unit is the same or substantially the same as the bargaining unit to which the bargaining arrangements mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) relate, and

(c) the application is made by the union which was a party (or unions which were parties) to the proceedings leading to the declaration.

38H.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of paragraphs 38E to 38G.
(2) It is for the CAC to decide whether one bargaining unit is the same or substantially the same as another, but in deciding the CAC may take account of the views of any person it believes has an interest in the matter.")
Page 30, line 31, after ("35(1)") insert ("or 38D(1)")
Page 30, line 34, after ("35(2)") insert ("or the application in question referred to in paragraph 38D(2);
but an application cannot be an original application unless it was made under paragraph 10(2) or 11(2)")
Page 30, line 37, after ("35") insert ("or is invalid by reason of paragraph 38D")
Page 31, leave out lines 5 to 21 and insert—
("Agreements for recognition
40.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) An agreement is an agreement for recognition if the following conditions are fulfilled in relation to it—

(a) the agreement is made in the permitted period between a union (or unions) and an employer in consequence of a request made under paragraph 3 and valid within the terms of paragraphs 4 to 8;

(b) under the agreement the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group or groups of workers employed by the employer;

(c) if sub-paragraph (5) applies to the agreement, it is satisfied.

(3) The permitted period is the period which begins with the day on which the employer receives the request and ends when the first of the following occurs—

(a) the union withdraws (or unions withdraw) the request;

(b) the union withdraws (or unions withdraw) any application under paragraph 10 or 11 made in consequence of the request;

(c) the CAC gives notice of a decision under paragraph 13(7) which precludes it from accepting such an application under paragraph 10 or 11;

(d) the CAC gives notice under paragraph 14(4)(a) or 18(4)(a) in relation to such an application under paragraph 10 or 11;

(e) the parties give notice to the CAC under paragraph 15A(2) in relation to such an application under paragraph 10 or 11;

(f) the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 20(2) in consequence of such an application under paragraph 10 or 11;

(g) the CAC is notified under paragraph 22(2) in relation to such an application under paragraph 10 or 11;

(h) the last day of the notification period ends (the notification period being that defined by paragraph 22(5) and arising from such an application under paragraph 10 or 11);

(i) the CAC is required under paragraph 39(3) to cancel such an application under paragraph 10 or 11.

(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies to an agreement if—

(a) at the time it is made the CAC has received an application under paragraph 10 or 11 in consequence of the request mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), and

(b) the CAC has not decided whether the application is admissible or it has decided that it is admissible.

(5) This sub-paragraph is satisfied if, in relation to the application under paragraph 10 or 11, the parties give notice to the CAC under paragraph 15A before the final event (as defined in paragraph 15A) occurs.
Other interpretation
41.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) In relation to an agreement for recognition, references to the bargaining unit are to the group of workers (or the groups taken together) to which the agreement for recognition relates.
(3) In relation to an agreement for recognition, references to the parties are to the union (or unions) and the employer who are parties to the agreement.
41A.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) The meaning of collective bargaining given by section 178(l) shall not apply.
(3) Except in paragraph 45(2), in relation to an agreement for recognition references to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to the matters in respect of which the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct negotiations under the agreement for recognition.
(4) In paragraph 45(2) the reference to collective bargaining is to negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays.
Determination of type of agreement
41B.—(1) This paragraph applies if one or more of the parties to an agreement applies to the CAC for a decision whether or not the agreement is an agreement for recognition.
(2) The CAC must give notice of receipt of an application under sub-paragraph (1) to any parties to the agreement who are not parties to the application.
(3) The CAC must within the decision period decide whether the agreement is an agreement for recognition.
(4) if the CAC decides that the agreement is an agreement for recognition it must issue a declaration to that effect.
(5) If the CAC decides that the agreement is not an agreement for recognition it must issue a declaration to that effect.
(6) The decision period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after that on which the CAC receives the application under sub-paragraph (1), or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties to the agreement by notice containing reasons for the extension.

Termination of agreement for recognition
41C.—(1) The employer may not terminate an agreement for recognition before the relevant period ends.
(2) After that period ends the employer may terminate the agreement, with or without the consent of the union (or unions).
(3) The union (or unions) may terminate an agreement for recognition at any time, with or without the consent of the employer.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) have effect subject to the terms of the agreement or any other agreement of the parties.
(5) The relevant period is the period of three years starting with the day after the date of the agreement.
41D.—(1) If an agreement for recognition is terminated, as from the termination the agreement and any provisions relating to the collective bargaining method shall ease to have effect.
(2) For this purpose provisions relating to the collective bargaining method are—

(a) any agreement between the parties as to the method by which collective bargaining is to be conducted with regard to the bargaining unit, or

(b) anything effective as, or as if contained in, a legally enforceable contract and relating to the method by which collective bargaining is to be conducted with regard to the bargaining unit.")

Page 31, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—
("42.—(1) This paragraph applies if the parties make an agreement for recognition.
(2) The parties may in the negotiation period conduct negotiations with a view to agreeing a method by which they will conduct collective bargaining.
(3) If no agreement is made in the negotiation period the employer or the union (or unions) may apply to the CAC for assistance.
(4) The negotiation period is—

(a) the period of 30 working days starting with the start day, or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the parties may from time to time agree.

(5) The start day is the day after that on which the agreement is made.
42A.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the parties to an agreement for recognition agree a method by which they will conduct collective bargaining, and

(b) one or more of the parties fails to carry out the agreement as to a method.

(2) The employer or the union (or unions) may apply to the CAC for assistance.
42B.—(1) This paragraph applies if an application for assistance is made to the CAC under paragraph 42 or 42A.
(2) The application is not admissible unless the conditions in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) are satisfied.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 31, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert—
("(4) The condition is that the union (or every union) has a certificate under section 6 that it is independent.")
Page 33, line 13, at end insert—
("(5A) If the CAC accepts an application, the applicant may not withdraw it after the end of the agreement period.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 33, line 27, at end insert (", and
("(b) provisions relating to the collective bargaining method apply in relation to the unit.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 to 35, 37, 38, 41 to 48 and 50. These amendments concern the treatment of voluntary and semi-voluntary recognition under Part III of the schedule; that is, the schedule dealing with changes affecting the bargaining unit. 'The amendments can be classified in two categories. The first category is amendments to the scope of Part HI which mean it will apply only to unions which were recognised through the statutory process in Part I. The second category of amendments ensures that Part HI deals appropriately with outside bargaining units; that is, with workers falling within a new unit who are covered by a different collective agreement. The amendments deal with the various categories of recognition in the outside unit; that is to say, voluntary, semi-voluntary and statutory. There are also some minor or consequential changes.
I turn to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 ensure that Part III applies only if there is a collective bargaining method. This is for the avoidance of doubt and for logical consistency. Amendment No. 32 is for consistency of wording with Amendment No. 30. Amendments Nos. 34 to 38 and 43 mean that Part III applies only to statutory recognition. If a union and an employer have agreed voluntary or semi-voluntary recognition, it will be up to them to negotiate a change in the bargaining unit if the employer's business changes.
Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 45, 46 and 48 correct a deficiency in the schedule. Paragraph 66 deals with the case where the CAC decides on a new bargaining unit which

1065
contains workers covered by another statutory recognition arrangement. As it stands, the schedule says nothing about how workers in the new unit covered by a voluntary or semi-voluntary agreement should be treated. Amendment No. 46 rectifies this by inserting a new paragraph 66A, similar in construction to paragraph 66, which provides that if a new unit contains workers covered by a voluntary or semi-voluntary recognition agreement recognition will cease for members of the original unit but the voluntary or semi-voluntary bargaining arrangements will not be affected.
Amendment No. 44 is a minor amendment to allow for the possibility that there may be more than one outside bargaining unit. Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 improve the procedure for dealing with outside bargaining units if there is more than one new unit. At present, paragraph 67 allows the CAC to re-declare recognition in an outside bargaining unit minus any "bites" taken out of that unit by new units. The CAC has to do so separately in relation to each new unit. However, it is possible that more than one new unit will each take a "bite" out of a single outside unit. In this case it would be better for the CAC to wait until it has dealt with all the new units before sorting out what remains of the outside unit. That is what Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 54:
Page 33, line 33, at end insert ("which apply in relation to the original unit.")
Page 33, line 34, leave out first ("the")
Page 33, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 34
Page 35, line 14, leave out ("or agreement")
Page 35, line 32, leave out ("or 47")
Page 38, line 30, leave out ("in") and insert ("under")
Page 38, line 45, leave out ("or agreement")
Page 39, line 12, leave out ("or 47")
Page 40, line 6, leave out ("appropriate or units which are") and insert ("(or units which are)")
Page 40, line 9, leave out ("appropriate or units which are") and insert ("(or units which are)")
Page 40, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
("(1) This paragraph applies if in the CAC's opinion the new unit contains at least one worker falling within a statutory outside bargaining unit.
(1A) In such a case—")
Page 40, line 27, leave out ("the outside unit") and insert ("each statutory outside bargaining unit containing workers who fall within the new unit")
Page 40, line 29, leave out ("or 47")
Page 40, line 30, leave out second ("the") and insert ("an")
Page 40, line 45, leave out ("An") and insert ("A statutory")
Page 41, line 9, at end insert
("66A.—(l) This paragraph applies if in the CAC's opinion the new unit contains—

(a) at least one worker falling within a voluntary outside bargaining unit, but

(b) no worker falling within a statutory outside bargaining unit.

1066
(2) In such a case—

(a) the CAC must issue a declaration that the original bargaining arrangements, so far as relating to workers falling within the new unit, are to cease to have effect on a date specified by the CAC in the declaration, and

(b) the original bargaining arrangements shall cease to have effect accordingly.

(3) The original bargaining arrangements are the bargaining arrangements as defined in paragraph 46.
(4) A voluntary outside bargaining unit is a bargaining unit which fulfils these conditions—

(a) it is not the original unit;

(b) a union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on its behalf by virtue of an agreement with the employer;

(c) the union (or at least one of the unions) is not a party referred to in paragraph 46.

(5) The date specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) must be—

(a) the date on which the relevant period expires, or

(b) if the CAC believes that to maintain the original bargaining arrangements would be impracticable or contrary to the interests of good industrial relations, the date after the date on which the declaration is issued;

and the relevant period is the period of 65 working days starting with the day after that on which the declaration is issued.")
Page 41, leave out lines 10 to 33
Page 41, line 34, after ("66(1)") insert ("or 66A(1)")
Page 43, line 45, at end insert
("(8) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (6) also apply if the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 25(2).")
Page 44, line 5, at end insert—
("73A.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC has proceeded as stated in paragraphs 66 to 72 with regard to the new unit (if there is one only) or with regard to each new unit (if there are two or more), and

(b) in so doing the CAC has issued one or more declarations under paragraph 66.

(2) The CAC must—

(a) consider each declaration issued under paragraph 66, and

(b) in relation to each declaration, identify each statutory outside bargaining unit which contains at least one worker who also falls within the new unit to which the declaration relates;

and in this paragraph each statutory outside bargaining unit so identified is referred to as a parent unit.
(3) The CAC must then—

(a) consider each parent unit, and

(b) in relation to each parent unit, identify any workers who fall within the parent unit but who do not fall within the new unit (or any of the new units); and in this paragraph the workers so identified in relation to a parent unit are referred to as a residual unit.

(4) In relation to each residual unit, the CAC must issue a declaration that the outside union is (or outside unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on its behalf.
(5) But no such declaration shall be issued in relation to a residual unit if the CAC has received an application under paragraph 49 or 58 in relation to its parent unit.
(6) In this paragraph references to the outside union (or to outside unions) in relation to a residual unit are to the union which is (or unions which are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of its parent unit.

1067
(7) If the CAC issues a declaration under sub-paragraph (4)—

(a) the declaration shall have effect in place of the existing declaration that the outside union is (or outside unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the parent unit, so far as the existing declaration relates to the residual unit;

(b) if there is a method of collective bargaining relating to the parent unit, it shall have effect in relation to the residual unit with any modifications which the CAC considers necessary to take account of the change of bargaining unit and specifies in the declaration.")

Page 44, line 20, at end insert—
("Withdrawal of application
74A.—(1) If an application under paragraph 49 or 58 is accepted by the CAC, the applicant (or applicants) may not withdraw the application—

(a) after the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 52(3) or 61(3),

(b) after the CAC decides under paragraph 60(2) or 60(3),

(c) after the CAC issues a declaration under paragraph 66(1), 68(2), 69(3) or 70(2) in relation to the new unit (where there is only one) or a declaration under any of those paragraphs in relation to any of the new units (where there is more than one),

(d) after the union has (or unions have) notified the CAC under paragraph 72(1) in relation to the new unit (where there is only one) or any of the new units (where there is more than one), or

(e) after the end of the notification period referred to in paragraph 72(1) and relating to the new unit (where there is only one) or any of the new units (where there is more than one).

(2) If an application is withdrawn by the applicant (or applicants)—

(a) the CAC must give notice of the withdrawal to the other party (or parties), and

(b) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.")

Page 44, line 20, at end insert—
"Meaning of collective bargaining
74B.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) Except in relation to paragraphs 52(5), 61(5) and 66(6), the meaning of collective bargaining given by section 178(1) shall not apply.
(3) In relation to a new unit references to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to the matters which were the subject of collective bargaining in relation to the corresponding original unit; and the corresponding original unit is the unit which was the subject of an application under paragraph 49 or 58 in consequence of which the new unit was agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC.
(4) But if the parties agree matters as the subject of collective bargaining in relation to the new unit, references to collective bargaining in relation to that unit are to negotiations relating to the agreed matters; and this is the case whether the agreement is made before or after the time when the CAC issues a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the new unit.
(5) In construing paragraphs 52(3)(c), 61(3)(c), 67(5)(b), 68(2)(c), 70(6)(b) and 72(6)(b}—

(a) sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) do not apply, and

(b) references to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays.

Method of collective bargaining
74C.—(l) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) Where a method of collective bargaining has effect in relation to a new unit, that method shall have effect as if it were contained in a legally enforceable contract made by the parties.
(3) But if the parties agree in writing—

(a) that sub-paragraph (2) shall not apply, or shall not apply to particular parts of the method, or

(b) to vary or replace the method,

the written agreement shall have effect as a legally enforceable contract made by the parties.
(4) Specific performance shall be the only remedy available for breach of anything which is a legally enforceable contract by virtue of this paragraph.")
Page 44, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 45
Page 45, line 5, leave out from ("declaration") to end of line 8
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 69:
Page 45, line 38, leave out ("(1)(b)") and insert ("(1)(a)")
Page 45, line 49, leave out ("81") and insert ("80")
Page 46, line 2, leave out ("(1)(b)") and insert ("(1)(a)")
Page 46, line 32, at end insert—
("(4) An application is not admissible if—

(a) a relevant application was made within the period of 3 years prior to the date of the application,

(b) the relevant application and the application relate to the same bargaining unit, and

(c) the CAC accepted the relevant application.

(5) A relevant application is an application made to the CAC—

(a) by the union (or the unions) under this paragraph,

(b) by the employer under paragraph 86, 87 or 106, or

(c) by a worker (or workers) under paragraph 91.")

Page 48, line 38, at end insert—
("88A.—(1) An application under paragraph 86 or 87 is not admissible if—

(a) a relevant application was made within the period of 3 years prior to the date of the application under paragraph 86 or 87,

(b) the relevant application and the application under paragraph 86 or 87 relate to the same bargaining unit, and

(c) the CAC accepted the relevant application.

(2) A relevant application is an application made to the CAC—

(a) by the union (or the unions) under paragraph 81,

(b) by the employer under paragraph 86, 87 or 106, or

(c) by a worker (or workers) under paragraph 91.")

Page 49, line 2, leave out ("and") and insert ("to")
Page 49, line 28, at end insert—
("91A.—(1) An application under paragraph 91 is not admissible if—

(a) a relevant application was made within the period of 3 years prior to the date of the application under paragraph 91,

(b) the relevant application and the application under paragraph 91 relate to the same bargaining unit, and

(c) the CAC accepted the relevant application.

(2) A relevant application is an application made to the CAC—

(a) by the union (or the unions) under paragraph 81,

(b) by the employer under paragraph 86, 87 or 106, or

(c) by a worker (or workers) under paragraph 91.")

Page 49, line 39, leave out ("and") and insert ("to")
Page 54, line 40, leave out ("to the CAC")
Page 54, line 44, leave out ("to the CAC")

1069
Page 54, line 47, at end insert—
(" 107A.—(1) An application under paragraph 106 is not admissible if—

(a) a relevant application was made within the period of 3 years prior to the date of the application under paragraph 106,

(b) the relevant application and the application under paragraph 106 relate to the same bargaining unit, and

(c) the CAC accepted the relevant application.

(2) A relevant application is an application made to the CAC—

(a) by the union (or the unions) under paragraph 81,

(b) by the employer under paragraph 86, 87 or 106, or

(c) by a worker (or workers) under paragraph 91.")

Page 55, line 1, leave out ("to the CAC")
Page 55, line 9, leave out ("and") and insert ("to")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 57 to 59 were spoken to with Amendment No. 10; Amendments Nos. 60 to 69 were spoken to with Amendment No. 6. There is a misprint in Amendment No. 60 as it appears on the Marshalled List. The second sub-paragraph should be "(5)". With that minor amendment, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 57 to 69 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 56, line 18, at end insert—
("114A. An application under paragraph 114 is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that any of the unions has a certificate under section 6 that it is independent.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 70 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 71 to 75. The Bill allows voluntary recognition of unions which do not hold a certificate of independence. If workers are happy to be represented by such unions, there is no problem. But we do not think it would be right for an employer to be able to prevent workers from being represented by the independent union of their choice by recognising a non-independent union. Part VI of Schedule 1 therefore provides a procedure for workers to request and, via a ballot, to require an employer to derecognise a non-independent trade union.
On Report in another place, the Secretary of State said that,
"there is an issue that the Government want to consider further: where a staff association or a non-independent union has applied for a certificate of independence, whether the CAC should not consider any application for derecognition until the outcome of that process is known".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/99; col. 1185.]
On further consideration, we believe it is right that a union which may be independent of control of the employer and which has applied for a certificate of independence should not be subject to derecognition under Part VI unless it fails to obtain that certificate. These amendments put the principle into effect. An application for derecognition made by workers after the union has applied for a certificate of independence will be suspended pending the outcome of the union's application to the certification officer. If the certification officer grants the certificate and the union becomes independent, it can no longer be derecognised under the
1070
procedure. If, however, the certification officer refuses the certificate, then the workers' application for derecognition can go ahead.
However, we believe it is important to prevent unscrupulous employers using an application for a certificate of independence by a sweetheart union which they control to delay a perfectly fair application under Part VI. We have therefore provided that the union's application must be made before the application for derecognition, to prevent applications made simply to delay matters. An application for derecognition will be stalled only until the certification officer reaches a verdict on the union's application for a certificate of independence. If the certification officer refuses the certificate, the application will then be allowed to proceed, even if the union appeals against the certification officer's decision. Of course, if an appeal is made and succeeds at any time during the course of an application for derecognition, the application will lapse. Paragraph 117D, which is inserted by Amendment No. 73, achieves this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 71 to 75:
Page 56, line 25, at end insert—
("(115A. An application under paragraph 114 is not admissible if the CAC is satisfied that—

(a) the union (or any of the unions) has made an application to the Certification Officer under section 6 for a certificate that it is independent, and

(b) the Certification Officer has not come to a decision on the application (or each of the applications).")

Page 56, line 29, leave out ("and 115") and insert ("to 115A")
Page 57, line 11, at end insert—
("117A.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 114,

(b) during the period mentioned in paragraph 117(1) or 117C(3) the CAC is satisfied that the union (or each of the unions) has made an application to the Certification Officer under section 6 for a certificate that it is independent, that the application (or each of the applications) to the Certification Officer was made before the application under paragraph 114 and that the Certification Officer has not come to a decision on the application (or each of the applications), and

(c) at the time the CAC is so satisfied there has been no agreement or withdrawal as described in paragraph 117(1) or 117C(3).

(2) In such a case paragraph 117(1) or 117C(3) shall cease to apply from the time when the CAC is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b).
117B.—(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC is subsequently satisfied that—

(a) the Certification Officer has come to a decision on the application (or each of the applications) mentioned in paragraph 117A(1)(b), and

(b) his decision is that the union (or any of the unions) which made an application under section 6 is independent.

(2) In such a case—

(a) the CAC must give the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) notice that it is so satisfied, and

(b) the application under paragraph 114 shall be treated as not having been made.

1071
117C.—(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC is subsequently satisfied that—

(a) the Certification Officer has come to a decision on the application (or each of the applications) mentioned in paragraph 117A(1)(b), and

(b) his decision is that the union (or each of the unions) which made an application under section 6 is not independent.

(2) The CAC must give the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) notice that it is so satisfied.
(3) In the new negotiation period the CAC must help the employer, the union (or unions) and the worker (or workers) with a view to—

(a) the employer and the union (or unions) agreeing to end the bargaining arrangements, or

(b) the worker (or workers) withdrawing the application.

(4) The new negotiation period is—

(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after that on which the CAC gives notice under sub-paragraph (2), or

(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may decide with the consent of the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions).

117D.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts an application under paragraph 114,

(b) paragraph 117A does not apply, and

(c) during the relevant period the CAC is satisfied that a certificate of independence has been issued to the union (or any of the unions) under section 6.

(2) In such a case the relevant period is the period starting with the first day of the negotiation period (as defined in paragraph 117(2)) and ending will the first of the following to occur—

(a) any agreement by the employer and the union (or unions) to end the bargaining arrangements;

(b) any withdrawal of the application by the worker (or workers);

(c) the CAC being informed of the result of a relevant ballot by the person conducting it;

and a relevant ballot is a ballot held by virtue of this Part of this Schedule.
(3) This paragraph also applies if—

(a) the CAC gives notice under paragraph 1 17C(2), and

(b) during the relevant period the CAC is satisfied that a certificate of independence has been issued to the union (or any of the unions) under section 6.

(4) (n such a case, tile relevant period is the period starting with the first day of the new negotiation period (as defined in paragraph 117C(4)) and ending with the first of the following to occur—

(a) any agreement by the employer and the union (or unions) to end the bargaining arrangements;

(b) any withdrawal of the application by the worker (or workers);

(c) the CAC being informed of the result of a relevant ballot by the person conducting it; and a relevant ballot is a ballot held by virtue of this Part of this Schedule.

(5) If this paragraph applies—

(a) the CAC must give the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) notice that it is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) or (3)(b), and

(b) the application under paragraph 114 shall be treated as not having been made.")

Page 57, line 15, after ("117(1)") insert ("or 117C(3)")
Page 57, line 22, at end insert—
("(c) the reference in paragraph 97(4) to the CAC refusing an application under paragraph 97(2) included a reference to it being required to give notice under paragraph 117D(5)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 59, leave out line 42
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 76 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 77. These amendments remove references to a worker's breach of contract from the provisions on detriment and dismissal connected with recognition in Part VIII.
I should start by explaining what these amendments are not intended to do. They are not intended to allow workers to breach their contracts in pursuit of union recognition. The purpose of the amendments is to prevent employers from circumventing the provisions which protect workers from detriment or dismissal arising from campaigning about recognition.
The existing text of the Bill is deficient in two ways. First, it would allow employers to write into workers' contracts a requirement not to campaign about recognition. Obviously, that would undermine the entire purpose of providing protection for workers in the schedule—indeed, of providing the schedule itself.
Secondly, in providing that actions in breach of contract are not protected, the schedule is currently different from other detriment and dismissal provisions—for example, Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996—because those provisions do not contain any mention of breach of contract. Retaining the existing text in the Bill might be taken to imply that a worker is always protected under other similar provisions where he acts in breach of contract. Again, that is obviously not desirable.
These amendments would continue to protect a worker from detriment or dismissal if, and only if. the worker's action is reasonable. In most cases it will be unreasonable for a worker to breach his or her contract, so I do not believe this change represents a substantial alteration of the provisions. It does, however, reduce the risk of circumvention of the provisions by unscrupulous employers and of unintended consequences on other legislation. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree that this is a desirable change. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this amendment. My recollection is that this was one of the issues we raised in Committee. I am very glad that the point has been accepted and I hope the House will give it full support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 77 to 80:
Page 61, leave out lines 32 and 33
Page 62, line 14, after ("20") insert ("or 70")
Page 62, line 24, after ("20") insert ("or 70")

1073
Page 62, line 44, at end insert—
("Directions about certain applications
139A.—(l) The Secretary of State may make to the CAC directions as described in sub-paragraph (2) in relation to any case where—

(a) two or more applications are made to the CAC,

(b) each application is a relevant application,

(c) each application relates to the same bargaining unit, and

(d) the CAC has not accepted any of the applications.

(2) The directions are directions as to the order in which the CAC must consider the admissibility of the applications.
(3) The directions may include—

(a) provision to deal with a case where a relevant application is made while the CAC is still considering the admissibility of another one relating to the same bargaining unit;

(b) other incidental provisions.

(4) A relevant application is an application under paragraph 81, 86, 87, 91 or 106.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 77 to 80. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Blacklists]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("recruitment") and insert ("discrimination in relation to recruitment or in relation to the treatment of workers")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 81, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 which are consequential upon it.
When the House last debated this matter, I referred to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had questioned aspects of our approach. We have reflected in particular on the comments made by the committee that the power should define more clearly the prohibition. We have looked again at Clause 3(1)(b) of the Bill, which describes the purposes to which blacklists are put. As drafted, the subsection seeks to prohibit lists which are,
"compiled with a view to being used by employers or employment agencies for the purposes of recruitment".
The main use of blacklists is undoubtedly in recruitment. However, the Government acknowledge that there exists a very real possibility that lists may be compiled and used to discriminate against workers already in employment. For example, the information could be used to encourage the dismissal of workers currently in employment.
The Government have therefore reflected on this issue and we conclude that the current form of words has too narrow a focus. It contains a potential loophole that might permit the use of blacklists to discriminate against existing members of a workforce.
Amendment No. 81 amends subsection (2)(b). It does so by expanding the prohibited purpose to include the use of lists for the purposes of discrimination against the existing members of a workforce as well as against prospective workers who are applying for work. I think it will be agreed that this is a sensible amendment. It closes the loophole
1074
that I have described and ensures that employers can be prevented from relying on the lists to sack or otherwise penalise their existing employees.
Amendment No. 83 is a consequential amendment to the interpretative subsection (5). It provides that the use of "worker" in Amendment No. 81 has the same meaning as it has in Clause 13 of the Bill, so ensuring that it covers agency workers, home workers and persons in Crown employment. This is a sensible definition. It will ensure that some of the more vulnerable members of the workforce are protected.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 84, which is also consequential. As currently drafted, subsection (6) states that terms used in the clause have the same meanings as they have in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The amendment ensures that the term "worker" in this clause, which is defined in subsection (5). is excluded from that rule of interpretation. That is necessary because the 1992 Act gives a different and narrower meaning to "worker". The amendment is therefore clarificatory and avoids interpretative confusion that might otherwise occur. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
("() include provision for or about the grant and enforcement of specified remedies by courts and tribunals;
() include provision for the making of awards of compensation calculated in accordance with the regulations;
() include provision permitting proceedings to be brought by trade unions on behalf of members in specified circumstances;
() include provision about cases where an employee is dismissed by his employer and the reason or principal reason for the dismissal, or why the employee was selected for dismissal, relates to a list to which subsection (1) applies;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this provision amends Clause 3, which gives a power to the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to prohibit the compilation, dissemination and use of blacklists. The clause does not contain the substantive provisions themselves.
We know that the drafting of these regulations will be a complicated matter. We want to ensure that they are well targeted and deal with wrongdoing without outlawing the proper use of information about trade unionists.
We have repeatedly stated our intention to consult in detail on the draft regulations. We shall be especially interested in views about how the sanctions against blacklisting should be defined and how the prohibition can be enforced in the courts or in the tribunals.
As currently drafted, the clause unnecessarily confines the range of enforcement methods and remedies which can be included in the regulations. Some important options might be closed off before we even began to consult on them. For example, it is

1075
unclear whether the Government would have the power to introduce regulations which gave the courts or the tribunals the authority to order blacklisting organisations to stop disseminating their lists and to ensure that such orders can be enforced. It is also unclear whether the regulations could enable compensation to be awarded to individuals who have lost their jobs or failed to find employment because their names were included on the lists.
In addition, we want to explore the possibility that unions should be able to bring proceedings on behalf of their members. It might be possible for multiple cases to be handled as one by a union, saving time for the tribunals or the courts, as well as the parties.
The amendment allows such options to be explored during the consultations by expressly stating on the face of the Bill that the regulations could include such remedies. Obviously, I do not wish to pre-judge the results of the consultation. There is no presumption on our part that the regulations will definitely include such solutions. But certainly they appear to be worth examining in closer detail.
The amendment therefore removes an unhelpful rigidity in the power to regulate in this area. It opens up the possibility that the regulatory regime can be more finely attuned to the views of those who are being consulted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
(", and
"worker" has the meaning given by section 13.")
Page 2, line 29, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (5),")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Ballots and notices]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 66, line 16, after ("and") insert ("depending on the circumstances")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment relates to what has been called the "health warning" that the Bill requires shall be inserted on a strike ballot form. It tells the employee his rights not to be dismissed in rather one-sided words, referring only to where such dismissal would be unfair, without mentioning the fact that in some circumstances it might be fair.
In Committee, I proposed an amendment to redress the balance. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that my amendment was unnecessary. However, after further discussion the noble Lord relented and generously agreed to look at the matter again. 'The noble Lord has honoured that promise, and my amendment now contains the wording that both meets my point and, I believe, is acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. this amendment seeks to amend the wording of the statutory health warning statement which all voting forms must contain, to make it clear that the dismissal of striking workers after the eight-week period may not necessarily be unfair. The health warning as set down in Schedule 3 simply reads that the dismissal "may be unfair", and the noble Baroness is concerned that it does not explicitly make the point that dismissals could be fair. She will remember that, as a market researcher, I am used to the idea that a question should contain both options in order to be a proper question.
We rejected the noble Baroness's amendment previously on the grounds that, strictly speaking, the health warning conveyed the notion that dismissals could be fair or unfair. However, as she said, we undertook to look at the matter again. The noble Baroness clearly feels strongly about this issue, and I want, as she does, to make sure that the wording is as clear as possible. In those circumstances, we are happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 66, line 16, at end insert—
("() In the definition of "strike" in section 246 (interpretation) after "means" there shall be inserted "(except for the purposes of section 229(2))".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 87. These two amendments contain the Government's proposals to amend Schedule 3 on industrial action ballots and notices.
Amendment No. 86 arose from a helpful discussion that we had in Committee on our proposals to define overtime and call-out bans as "action short of a strike". My noble friend Lord Wedderburn drew attention to our failure to spot the need to amend Section 246 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. I undertook to look at the matter again. I have done so, and I conclude that we need to make a consequential change to Section 246 of the 1992 Act along the lines of my noble friend's suggestion.
Amendment No. 86 makes it clear that the general definition of a strike given in Section 246 does not apply when it comes to the categorisation of overtime and call-out bans as "action short of a strike" for the purpose of the balloting provisions. The amendment helps avoid possible confusion in the future and ensures that Section 246 cannot be drawn upon, as it was in the recent Connex v RMT case, to justify the classification of such action as a "strike".
Amendment No. 87 deals with the treatment of merchant seamen during industrial action ballots. Obviously, such workers move around. They are often away from home. That can create problems for them during industrial action ballots because, to comply with the existing law, most ballot papers have to be

1077
sent to their home addresses. If members are away at the time, it can be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to vote.
The current law allows seamen to be balloted on board ship, or at a port where the ship is, as long as they are at sea or at a foreign port during the entire period of the ballot. This helps the balloting process to a certain extent. But it does not deal adequately with the situation where a seaman is at sea for just a part of the balloting period. In such circumstances, it may be impractical for a seaman to return to his home address. For example, he might well be staying at a port elsewhere in the UK awaiting embarkation.
Amendment No. 87 deals with these circumstances. It enables the union to send the ballot paper to the ship or to a UK or foreign port where the ship is, if its member is at sea or at a foreign port for any time during the balloting period. In deciding whether to do this, the union must judge whether it would be convenient for the member to receive the ballot paper in this way. In practice, this judgment should not pose difficulties for unions. If in doubt, they can always ask their members in advance of any ballot what their movements are expected to be. The amendment makes it easier for individual seamen to participate in ballots.
I also want to take this opportunity to give notice to noble Lords that we are considering a further amendment to Schedule 3. This concerns the simplification of the law on separate workplace ballots. This aspect of the law is notoriously complicated and we are continuing our efforts to identify a suitable way to clarify its effects. If successful, we hope to come forward with an amendment at Third Reading. I apologise for proceeding in this way. But I hope noble Lords will agree with me that it would be best for us to proceed only when we are sure that our proposals are correct in every respect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 66, line 16, at end insert—
("Conduct of ballot: merchant seamen
. In section 230 (conduct of ballot) for subsections (2A) and (2B) there shall be substituted—
"(2A) Subsection (2B) applies to a merchant seaman if the trade union reasonably believes that—

(a) he will be employed in a ship either at sea or at a place outside Great Britain at some time in the period during which votes may be cast, and

(b) it will be convenient for him to receive a voting paper and vote while on the ship or while at a place where the ship is rather than in accordance with subsection (2).

(2B) Where this subsection applies to a merchant seaman he shall, if it is reasonably practicable—

(a) have a voting paper made available to him while on the ship or while at a place where the ship is, and

(b) be given an opportunity to vote while on the ship or while at a place where the ship is."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Training]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Leave for Family and Domestic Reasons.]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 70, line 2, leave out ("conferred by the regulations") and insert ("under this Chapter")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment to new Section 75(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act, which provides that an employee who has maternity rights under her employment contract and under the statutory scheme can choose to exercise whichever is the most advantageous to her in any particular respect. This is similar to the existing provision in the Employment Rights Act.
The need for the amendment is simply because the Bill as drafted refers to rights conferred by regulations whereas the rights in question are in fact contained in the primary legislation.
I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 95. These amendments address the issue of a maximum limit on parental leave raised by the amendment which the noble Baroness tabled in Committee, and which she kindly withdrew when I offered to consider further and bring forward a revised version today.
The amendments affect the fallback parental leave scheme which we are intending to set out in regulations. They provide for some additional powers to ensure that the fallback scheme can, if considered appropriate, set a maximum period of leave to be taken at one time or within a given period.
Let me clarify what will be the result. The Bill already provides for the minimum length of an absence to be set out in regulations, and the most that an employee could take overall will be governed by the entitlement, which will be three months, in line with the parental leave directive.
As a result of these amendments we will have more options to shape the fallback scheme in line with the views we have already received, the matters raised in this House, and in response to our impending consultation. We will have more flexibility to arrive at a balanced scheme. For example, we could provide for a single period of leave to be taken as a minimum period of a week, but no more than a month.
We could limit the amount of leave which could be taken in a given timescale, say six months or a year, without reducing the overall entitlement. We could set out a fair and reasonable framework while leaving it to the individual to choose whether or not to take their leave as a single block or in shorter spells within the framework.
Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 are technical. Their object is to achieve our aim of ensuring that employers and employees have the maximum possible freedom to make their own parental leave arrangements. The amendments replace the existing provisions on collective and workforce agreements in new Section 81 with a more flexible arrangement, which is to be inserted at the end of new Section 78. Our intention, as I made clear in Committee, is to encourage businesses and their workforces to come to their own agreements about how parental leave will operate for them.
We want to ensure that there is sufficient scope for agreements to replace or supplement the statutory provisions, except where these are set in stone as minimum requirements. It will not be possible for collective and workforce agreements to undermine certain minimum requirements; for example, the entitlement to at least three months' leave to care for a child, and the precondition of a year's service in order to qualify for the entitlement, although we will always applaud more generous provision where it can be afforded.
However, there are more discretionary matters, such as the notice requirements or the arrangements for taking leave in short or long periods, where workforces and their employers could agree something different from the fallback scheme which will be provided for in the regulations.
Under the existing provisions, collective and workforce agreements can only substitute for the statutory scheme to the extent that they cover the same ground as the regulations, whereas this amendment will ensure that any relevant agreement can substitute, provided that the contract of employment incorporates or operates by reference to a collective or workforce agreement which provides for parental leave.
This will ensure more flexibility in practice—the light touch we are aiming for. In effect this amendment will also help to ensure that all parties are clear when an agreement is substituting for the discretionary fallback provisions. I commend our amendments in this group to the House and beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 93 and 97 to which the noble Lord has just spoken modify the disruption that may be caused to an employer by the introduction of the concept of parental leave. I am particularly pleased that the Minister considered carefully what we said earlier about the cost to industry and commerce and the loss of competitiveness. We believe that any reduction in those burdens, even the modest ones proposed in the
1080
amendment, are most welcome. I am especially pleased to see the alteration of line 43 on page 70, so that any regulations by the Secretary of State may specify the maximum period of parental leave as well as the minimum, which is all the Bill originally provided.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, said, I proposed a similar amendment in Committee and I wanted to require the setting of minimum and maximum limits. He replied that it would require further consideration, although the principle was accepted. I am glad that there has been further consideration. I am happy that by altering the word "and" to "or" the Government have found a solution.
However, I wish to point out in the gentlest possible manner that after the passing of the amendment the clause would read that regulations may,
"specify a minimum or maximum period of absence".
I do not know whether it is correct, but my legal adviser tells me that this might prevent a regulation from specifying both parameters. I am certain that the Secretary of State will sort it out when he gets round to issuing the regulations. Subject to that minor quibble, we support the amendments.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 91A and 92 which are grouped with the noble Lord's amendments. Amendment No. 91A is a one-word amendment to the important provision entitling a worker to parental leave. Parental leave is something in addition to the maternity leave to which a mother is entitled. Throughout all the discussion about the provision, it has been made clear that parental leave shall be unpaid. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, told the Committee:
"We are absolutely clear and we have been from the outset that there will be no requirement to pay for parental leave and the Bill provides for that".—[Official Report, 16/6/99: col. 318.]
On that basis, I withdrew my identical amendment. I do not for one moment doubt the noble Lord's word, I am absolutely certain that if he says it is in the Bill, it is somewhere in the Bill. But despite a careful search, I cannot find it, nor can my advisers, nor the trade association which has briefed me on some aspects of the Bill. It may well be that we have overlooked a clause. However, I thought it best in the end to bring it back so that the Minister could tell me where it is. I am sure it would be helpful. The fact is that it is not in an obvious place where an employer can easily put his finger on it; it should be, even if it is repeated elsewhere in the Bill. For the sake of absolute clarity, I hope that the Government will accept my amendment which merely reflects what they say is the current position. Therefore, they should not have a problem with it.
Amendment No. 92 instructs the Secretary of State as to the nature of the regulations he may make in relation to parental leave. The detailed wording is in the text, but in very shortened form, and provides that

1081
the regulations must not impede small and medium size undertakings. It also entitles the employer to postpone the right to parental leave for what are called "justifiable reasons" listed under four headings. This is not just a wish list from the Opposition or industry but exceptions that are specifically allowed for by the working time directive which is the basis of the imposition by the Government of that obligation on industry and commerce. In accepting the limitations imposed by these amendments the Government would demonstrate their good intention neither to goldplate any regulations nor to impose any that constituted an undue burden on commerce, especially small and medium size enterprises.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally understand the concern of the noble Baroness that employers should be free of any doubt that parental leave is to be unpaid. But, as I assured her when we debated in Committee, there is no cause for concern. The Bill makes clear that there will be no requirement for employers to pay parental leave.
Perhaps I may rehearse the arguments to make the position absolutely clear. These provisions are about introducing unpaid parental leave. New Section 76 does not itself confer a right to paid leave. It provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations which will in turn provide for a right to parental leave. As I affirmed in Committee, new Section 77 makes clear that any terms and conditions required by the regulations to continue during parental leave cannot include terms and conditions about remuneration. I can assure the noble Baroness that the effect is to ensure that parental leave cannot be required to be paid and, therefore, her amendment is unnecessary.
I turn to Amendment No. 92. The noble Baroness and I are at one on the principles behind the amendment, if not on the method of dealing with them. The Government strongly believe that legislation must not damage business competitiveness and in particular that the needs of small businesses are paramount. The Prime Minister has only recently reaffirmed the need to ensure good regulation. This means the minimum provisions necessary to ensure a bottom line of acceptable standards. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I announced that we were adopting a new approach to the regulations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intends to operate with a light touch.
The basic right to parental leave will be set out in the regulations but we will encourage employers and employees to make their own arrangements. The Government's amendment to follow new Section 78 of the 1996 Act will make it possible for regulations to provide for employers and employees to opt out of the details of the regulations through collective and workforce agreements. These regulations will provide a fall-back arrangement which automatically take effect if employers and employees cannot agree on, or do not wish to make, their own arrangements. We
1082
shall consult further on the details of the fall-back scheme, including the provisions relating to the postponement of leave.
I fully share the concern of the noble Baroness that employers should be able to postpone leave if necessary. It is clearly right that, faced with perhaps several requests for leave at a busy time, the employer should be able to say, "I'm afraid not now, but later." We want to consult on what the regulations should say. My concern is that the amendment would pre-empt that consultation. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured that in resisting the amendment we are not rejecting the principles it embodies. We have taken account of the views of the business community throughout the process and have gained the support of both sides of industry for our minimalist approach to the regulations.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am reassured by what the Minister said but when I read the wording of the Bill the position relating to unpaid leave is not clear. I shall certainly have another look at the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 91A and 92 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 93 to 97:
Page 70, line 38, at end insert—
("() require parental leave to be taken as a series of periods of absence in all cases or in specified cases;").
Page 70, line 43, after ("minimum") insert ("or maximum")
Page 70, line 44, at end insert-
("() specify a maximum aggregate of periods of parental leave which may be taken during a specified period of time.").
Page 71, line 43, at end insert—
("() Regulations under section 76 may provide for specified provisions of the regulations not to apply in relation to an employee if any provision of his contract of employment—

(a) confers an entitlement to absence from work for the purpose of caring for a child, and

(b) incorporates or operates by reference to all or part of a collective agreement, or workforce agreement, of a kind specified in the regulations.")

Page 72, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 73
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 73, leave out lines 13 to 43 and insert—
("Dependants
TIME OFF FOR DEPENDANTS
57A.—(1) An employee is entitled to be permitted by his employer to take a reasonable amount of time off during the employee's working hours in order to take action which is necessary—

(a)to provide assistance on an occasion when a dependant falls ill, gives birth or is injured or assaulted,

(b) to make arrangements for the provision of care for a dependant who is ill or injured,

(c) in consequence of the death of a dependant,

(d) because of the unexpected disruption or termination of arrangements for the care of a dependant, or

(e) to deal with an incident which involves a child of the employee and which occurs unexpectedly in a period during which an educational establishment which the child attends is responsible for him.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply unless the employee—

(a) tells his employer the reason for his absence as soon as reasonably practicable, and

(b) unless paragraph (a) cannot be complied with until after the employee has returned to work, tells his employer for how long he expects to be absent.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), for the purposes of this section "dependant" means, in relation to an employee—

(a) a spouse,

(b) a child,

(c) a parent,

(d) a person who lives in the same household as the employee, otherwise than by reason of being his employee, tenant, lodger or boarder.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (b) "dependant" includes, in addition to the persons mentioned in subsection (3), any person who reasonably relies on the employee—

(a) for assistance on an occasion when the person falls ill or is injured or assaulted, or

(b) to make arrangements for the provision of care in the event of illness or injury.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) "dependant" includes, in addition to the persons mentioned in subsection (3), any person who reasonably relies on the employee to make arrangements for the provision of care.
(6) A reference in this section to illness or injury includes a reference to mental illness or injury.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 98 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 103 to 110 and 112. The Government are committed to putting in place a framework of fair and decent statutory rights which will help employees to balance their work and home responsibilities. At the same time, we are determined to ensure that this statutory framework does not place unnecessary and unjustifiable burdens on employers. Our competitive economy depends upon strong, modern businesses. Good working practices contribute to a competitive business by encouraging a committed and productive workforce. But too many demands on employers will undermine their competitive edge. This is an important reason why the Government are committed to cutting bureaucracy and burdensome regulations. I hope that
1084
what we are doing will be welcomed by the noble Baroness who, I know, shares some concerns about this provision.
In tabling this group of amendments we have listened to representations in the other place and concerns raised by business that the provisions on time off go beyond what is necessary to achieve our aims. In particular, the noble Baroness drew attention to this matter by tabling a number of amendments in Committee. We have never wanted to adopt the wording of the parental leave directive. It would lead to a too narrow and begrudging approach. That fosters the wrong culture of distrust and fear and goes against our main objective to support employees who have caring responsibilities.
We want to ensure that employees who have to take time off work to deal with an emergency involving someone else who depends on them are able to do so without fear of victimisation. But we recognise that the Bill as published provides a wide right to time off for domestic incidents, and we are persuaded that it could be interpreted as going beyond our policy intentions. The provisions were never intended to allow employees time off to get their washing machines mended, for example. We had intended to use the regulation-making powers if necessary to clarify the matter. However, employers were concerned that such a wide provision in the Bill could easily be abused.
These amendments will put the provision back on a proper footing and cut out the risk of abuse by those who may seek to take time off to deal with running repairs to the home. The statutory right will be limited to urgent cases of real need. The emergency must involve a dependant who is either a family member or someone who relies upon the employee for assistance in the particular circumstances. By "family member" I mean a child, parent, husband, wife, partner or other household member, but not someone who is in the household because he or she is the employee, tenant, lodger or boarder of that employee. By "someone who relies upon the employee for assistance" I mean an individual for whom the employee has primary caring responsibility or someone who is involved in a serious emergency where the employee is the only person who can help: for example, an elderly neighbour living alone who falls and breaks a leg.
We have now set out clearly on the face of the Bill the circumstances in which leave can be taken. In so doing we will remove the need for long and complex regulations, or for collective or workforce agreements to opt out of the regulations. This approach has been supported by the CBI. The majority of employers already allow time off in emergencies and we do not want to discourage them from doing so. This amendment ensures that all employees will be entitled to time off in specific circumstances which most of us would accept.
Let me spell out what the amendment is intended to cover. We intend the right to apply where a dependant becomes sick or has an accident, or is assaulted, including where the victim is distressed rather than physically injured. It provides for reasonable time off, if an employee suffers a bereavement of a family member,

1085
to deal with the consequences of that bereavement, such as making funeral arrangements, as well as to take time off to attend the funeral.
Employees will be able also to take time off in the event of the unexpected absence of the carer, where the person is a dependant of the employee. So if the childminder or the nurse does not turn up, the employee will be able to sort things out without fearing reprisals at work.
Employees may have to take time off to attend to a problem arising at their children's school or during school hours—for example, if the child has been involved in a fight, where the child is distressed, or if the child has committed a serious misdemeanour which could lead to expulsion. Again, the provision will secure their right to do so.
A father will have the right to be on hand at the birth of his child. After the birth, a father may be able to take parental leave to care for his child—but that is a matter which we will leave for the time being to the parental leave consultation.
I hope everyone can agree that all these are sensible, limited circumstances in which every employee should be able to take a reasonable amount of time off if necessary in order to deal with the matter.
We have not set a limit on the amount of time which employees can take off. This right is to help people deal with emergencies. A limit would not make sense and could be seen as a minimum, which employees might well consider an entitlement to be added to their annual leave. In all cases, the right will be limited to the amount of time which is reasonable in the circumstances of a particular case. For example, if a child falls ill with chickenpox the leave must be sufficient to enable the employee to cope with the crisis—to deal with the immediate care of the child and to make alternative longer-term care arrangements. The right will not enable a mother to take a fortnight off while her child is in quarantine. In most cases, whatever the problem, one or two days will be the most that are needed to deal with the immediate issues and sort out longer-term arrangements if necessary.
I am sure we can all agree that it is only reasonable to expect employees to notify their employers of their absence, the reason for the absence and, where possible, the duration of the absence, as soon as reasonably practicable. The amendment builds in this requirement.
This right gives important protection to employees. No employee should have to fear victimisation or dismissal for taking time off if his or her child has an accident; and an employee will be able to complain to an employment tribunal if the employer has unreasonably refused time off.
I am sure these amendments, which provide clarity without bureaucracy, will receive widespread support from noble Lords. I hope the noble Baroness will be satisfied that they meet the concerns raised about this issue, including those of business. I commend them, and I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Minister said, the amendment deletes the whole
1086
of the former proposed clause and replaces it with an entirely new one. We on this side of the House entirely welcome that.
The major amendment that the Government have introduced is to get rid of the proposal that the rule should be prescribed in regulations, which would be thought up some time later. I hope that this new method will be adopted in other Bills, rather than the Government's producing what are largely enabling Bills on many important topics.
I congratulate the team of Ministers who have been dealing with the matter and the team of officials in the Box who have found a way of dealing with it at the appropriate time. In this case they have bitten the bullet, and despite the inability of the Minister of State in the other place to define a domestic incident they have now spelt out in straightforward terms exactly the circumstances in which such leave is to be taken.
The Bill as originally drafted was vague and woolly. The noble Lord the Minister was correct when he talked about it not being a matter of time off to have a washing machine repaired. I think that may have been something to which I referred when I said how woolly the Bill was. In fact, it seemed wide and woolly but it looked nothing less than gold-plating the European Union's directive, which used the expression "force majeure".
My own amendment was to specify what should be covered, by using the EU's own wording. Perhaps it is just as well that this will not now be necessary, because in 1904 Mr Justice Walton was asking "What is the meaning of force majeure?" In 1915 Mr Justice Bailhaghe complained that the words were taken from the Napoleonic Code; and in 1922 Mr Justice Sankey said that he absolutely regretted the introduction of foreign words into English statutes without any definition being given. I apologise for my having attempted to do that in my amendment. I am only glad that the Government have done the right thing and told us precisely what is involved. I have, of course, withdrawn my amendment defining the grounds of such leave.
I am also very glad to see that the Government have in their new subsection (2) adopted my intended amendment requiring the employee to do the minimum courtesy of informing his employer of the reason for taking such leave and to predict the date of his return. Therefore, I am able to withdraw my amendment covering that point as well.
Amendment No. 103, to page 73, line 45, inserts the concept of reasonableness to judge an employer's conduct if he refuses such leave. This is also most welcome. The Department of Trade and Industry has often been reluctant in other cases where I have argued for acceptance of "reasonable", as if it was not sure whether it could reasonably understand what "reasonable" meant. It is absolutely great that in this case it has been accepted. This change of heart, and the insertion of just two words that I never thought I would hear the Government utter, enabled me to withdraw an entire amendment covering 15 lines and containing two subsections and four paragraphs.

1087
Yet again I am pleased to note that the Government have now inserted a new and detailed amendment, defining in subsection (3) the dependants whose problems, to use a wholly inadequate word, might give rise to the need for such leave. It may be recalled that I proposed an amendment along those lines at an earlier stage to eliminate what I described as a limitless definition in the Bill. The Government did not accept my amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, said that they would consider the matter carefully. He said:
"We need to arrive al a definition which is effective, but simple for employers to operate".—[Official Report, 16/6/99; col. 318.]
Although the wording of the Government's definition is quite different from that which I proposed, I am grateful that they have taken my concerns on board and have dealt with the matter in a most satisfactory manner in the new clause.
I mentioned my amendments, en passant, not to detract from the reasonable way in which the Government have dealt with these matters but to give credit where credit is due, which I like to think is down to me. We support that amendment as well as Amendments Nos. 104 to 112.
After all this good will, it is perhaps churlish of me to mention my own very minor amendment, Amendment 98A, to the Government's amendment. This inserts "unpaid" to qualify the time off provided for in the opening words of the Government's new clause. I will not take up much time in arguing this point as I dealt with it in connection with the new clause 76 inserted by the Schedule. If we agree that an employee should be entitled to time off because of a serious domestic emergency, there is no reason why his or her employer should be compelled to pay him at the same time.
Of course I accept, and it is right, that most employers will be sympathetic and probably would not dream of docking any pay. But some, particularly small firms, may have no alternative, especially if they have to employ somebody to make up the time and work of their absent employee. In all the discussions in the other place it was made clear that parental leave was to be unpaid. That was in the explanatory notes to the Bill, though I did not find it in the Bill itself. I do not believe that there is any reason why there should be a distinction in the case of emergency leave. On the assumption that that is the intention, this clarification will put the matter beyond argument. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept this minor modification of their very good amendment, which we otherwise support.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, the House will not be surprised that I rise to speak very warmly in support of Amendment No. 98 in particular. It gives employees who are carers the right to take a reasonable amount of time off in order to deal with a whole range of difficult caring situations, such as making arrangements for residential care if alternative care arrangements break down.
The amendment sets out very clear parameters for both employers and employees about the right to time off. It is particularly welcome that it is phrased in such
1088
a way as to encompass a wide range of caring situations and does not discriminate against different groups of carers, such as those looking after unmarried partners or those who have responsibilities for people living outside the family home. I particularly welcome the fact that the amendment mentions the kinds of problems that are stress-related and are not just to do with physical injury.
Carers' national associations, which have been campaigning for many years for the right to time off for working carers, welcome the amendment. It fulfils a pledge made in the national strategy for carers that they would have time off from work to deal with caring situations. This is part of a package of family-friendly employment policies which I welcome most warmly, and I know that all working carers will do so too.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords., the provision to which this amendment relates, new Section 57A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, will be incorporated into a part of that Act which includes a number of different provisions for time off for various reasons. The amendment is not necessary; indeed, it could cause some confusion. I shall explain.
In the case of some of those provisions—provision for time off for ante-natal care is an example—the section providing for the right is immediately followed by another section providing for the time off to be paid. In the case of others—for example, the section providing for time off for public duties—there is no following section providing for remuneration. New Section 57A will not be followed by a remuneration provision. The clear result will accordingly be that an employer is under no obligation to pay the employee in respect of the time off provided for.
Were we to make the amendment, it would create confusion about how other provisions for time off were to be interpreted. It would be arguable that, because the word "unpaid" appeared in Section 57A but not Section 50 (which provides for time off for public duties), employees taking time off under Section 50 had to be paid for the time off taken.
Should the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, need any further persuasion on the point, she could consider new Section 57B which will be inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 after Section 57A. It provides that an employee may make a complaint to an employment tribunal if his employer has unreasonably refused to permit him to take emergency leave but it does not entitle him to complain that the employer has failed to pay such leave. I hope that that illustration helps to reassure the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation. I would not wish to make the issue more complicated and I am satisfied with the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 98A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 98, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 98 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 103 to 110:
Page 73, line 45, leave out ("failed") and insert ("unreasonably refused")
Page 74, leave out lines 15 to 30
Page 74, line 44, leave out ("for domestic incidents") and insert ("under section 57A of that Act (dependants)")
Page 75, line 6, leave out ("for domestic incidents") and insert ("under section 57A of that Act (dependants)")
Page 75, leave out line 14 and insert ("under section 57A of that Act (dependants),".")
Page 75, line 40, leave out ("for domestic incidents") Page 76, line 27, leave out ("for domestic incidents")
Page 77, line 19, leave out ("for domestic incidents") and insert ("under section 57A")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury) moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 77, leave out lines 24 to 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is not in his place on the Liberal Democrat Benches—
Lord Razzall: My Lords, he is a judge now.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, thank you. I need eyes in the back of my head. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, because during Committee stage he tabled an interesting amendment which had been inspired by the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Carver v. Saudi Arabian Airlines. In that case, the employee's contract of employment, at the time it was made, required her ordinarily to work in Saudi Arabia. As a result, when she was dismissed she was deprived of the redress she sought through an employment tribunal, even though by that time she had worked in the UK for four years. In turn, the Government have been inspired to take the matter further and bring forward this present group of amendments.
We have been considering the operation of Section 196, which limits the operation of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to employees who ordinarily work in Great Britain. It is a complicated section, the result of several consolidations, some relating to legislation at least a quarter of a century old. After careful consideration, we have concluded that the complexities are unnecessary. International law and the principles of our own domestic law are enough to ensure that our legislation does not apply in inappropriate circumstances. There must be some proper connection with the UK first, and in such cases it is right that UK law should apply.
Other legislation has no need of such restrictions. We believe that now is the time to simplify the provisions in line with our commitment to simplify and improve regulation, which my noble friend the Minister mentioned a moment ago. Furthermore, repealing the section has a number of other significant advantages. It ensures that we are fulfilling our EU obligations, which
1090
in some circumstances mean that European-derived rights should apply to individuals working abroad who may not currently be covered. It extends employment rights to employees temporarily working in Great Britain and thus implements some of the provisions of the posting of workers directive which otherwise would require further regulations later this year.
It also means that people like Mrs Carver, who had worked for some years in the UK but was nevertheless excluded from claiming under the Employment Rights Act 1996, will be able to rely on the protection of our legislation as should be the case. I do not claim that the amendment will have drastic effects in practice. Very few cases like Mrs Carver's arise, and the additional costs to employers will be minimal. Nevertheless, it takes forward an important principle and modernises and simplifies our legislation.
We are taking care of the special position of seafarers. Special provisions already apply to them under existing Sections 196 and 199. We will ensure that the amendment to Section 199 maintains their current position, if necessary through a technical adjustment at Third Reading.
The new clause grouped with the amendment I have moved, makes a parallel change to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, removing the territorial restrictions in that Act on rights to be consulted about mass redundancies. The other amendment is a purely technical change to powers in the 1992 Act to extend rights to offshore installations. Currently no procedure is specified for making the order. The amendments will provide for negative resolution in line with that in the Employment Rights Act 1996. I hope noble Lords will join me in welcoming this group of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I shall try to clarify the interchange that just took place. My noble friend Lord Meston no longer sits on the Liberal Democrat Benches because he has become a judge and has joined the Cross Benches. Having said that, I know that I speak on his behalf in thanking the Minister for making those concessions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 77, line 41, leave out ("for domestic incidents") and insert ("under section 57A").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
("() This section shall not apply to an employer who shows that to comply with it would conflict with his religious beliefs and conscience.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment and the related Amendment No. 116 are concerned with a matter of conscience. They are not difficult to understand and the issue has been debated in another place. They are tabled at the request of the Plymouth

1091
Brothers. I should perhaps start by saying that I do not belong to that organisation. However, I understand the sincerity of their religious beliefs.
The Plymouth Brothers have asked me to say how grateful they are for the care and sympathy they received following written and other representations made during the passage of the Bill. They are asking for freedom to practice their religion as they believe appropriate.
The Plymouth Brothers are a small community. They run some 1,200 businesses, mainly small ones, and they employ some 6,500 people—all but 2,000 of whom are members of the organisation. They are generally regarded as very good employers, but they do not believe that it is appropriate for trade unions or employees associations to intervene in industrial relations.
When the Minister in the other place replied to similar amendments, he said that,
"the Government cannot accept that the religious freedom of employers, who are, after all, free to choose whether to employ others and how to arrange their affairs, should take precedence over the rights of individuals to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/99; col. 993.]
This raises an awkward point, to which I drew attention when the Human Rights Bill was going through the House, as to what should be done when the rights of two groups of people clash as each group is entitled to certain rights. That is the situation with which we are confronted. It is appropriate that the rights of those with deeply held religious convictions should be considered.
It is rather disingenuous to say that all employers are free to employ whoever they wish. Of course an employer will not take on someone that he does not regard as appropriate, but one cannot be certain in any business where you may not require to employ someone who has specialist skills but who is not a Plymouth Brother. So I do not think that that argument entirely stands up.
I would be very worried about the final argument the Minister used. He said there was a danger that any religious exemption would be a loophole through which unscrupulous employers would seek to exploit the Bill. If one thing is absolutely clear about the Plymouth Brothers, it is that they lead a highly disciplined and different life front almost everyone else. The idea that anyone, unless he was prepared to lead this kind of life, could just join in simply does not stand up.
It is worth reminding the House that the Plymouth Brothers have important features of their conscientious beliefs. They arise out of an innate belief of what is morally right or morally wrong. It is not based on a whim or a fancy or on personal or political preferences but on what is perceived to be a moral principle. It is a deep conviction, not a shallow or a superficial one. A person holding it would feel that it was his duty to do so. It is durable, being held with a degree of tenacity and consistency over time, and it is held regardless of any question of personal advantage or disadvantage. One has only to look for a short period of time at the
1092
kind of lives the Plymouth Brothers lead to realise that the idea that other organisations could somehow claim an exemption on this ground simply is not true.
I very much hope that the Government will view the amendment with sympathy. It is a very real point; it is a matter of human rights; and it is a difficult situation. But I do not think that such an amendment could be exploited by other organisations in different circumstances. We have a duty to consider minorities and to make sure that their interests are protected. I hope that the Government will look at the amendment sympathetically. If the wording is not quite right, I shall be more than happy to take the amendment away and reword it. I am speaking on a very real point of conscience and one which I think the House will recognise as being unlike any other situation. One cannot imagine any other employer claiming this exemption unless he had these beliefs. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I support the amendment. I was particularly moved by what my noble friend said about the features of real conscientious belief. I believe that in this society we should be tolerant and make exceptions for the really genuine religious beliefs of our fellow citizens. I am proud when I think how much this country does to welcome people of different ideas, to be tolerant of them and to accept them. I say that as someone who comes from a minority religion and as a grand-daughter of four people who were persecuted in different countries. I find standing at the Dispatch Box in the House of Lords very moving. I believe that our people really are tolerant and do their very best to accommodate the ideals of all the different religions.
The idea that anyone would invent a device to avoid legislation such as this, particularly in following a religion like the Plymouth Brothers, which is a difficult religion to follow, is nonsense. It would be taking avoidance tactics to the extreme for someone to invent a whole new religion just to keep the unions out of his business. The Plymouth Brethren are an established and well respected sect. It may well be that some people consider their views and practices somewhat quirky, but their views are genuinely held. No one could claim to be a Plymouth Brother without following very rigorous requirements, including the banning of radio and television and not being able to join in any associations. Only last week my husband was out to dinner. In the course of conversation the gentleman with whom he was friendly told him that he had just taken over a business in Plymouth. Indeed, it was a business that had been owned by the Plymouth Brethren. My husband's friend told him that he was amazed when he discovered that his whole sales force in the business had cars but had taken the radios out of the cars because the Brethren did not allow them.
It is impossible for the Brethren to deal with the unions in this way, but I cannot imagine that the whole trade union structure would come crashing to the ground if the Government were able to accept the amendment and show some acceptance of the views of the few members—it would not be many—who might be

1093
involved. My noble friend said that it might be the case that her amendment could be better worded. Perhaps the Government could take the amendment away and look to find some accommodation in order to help people who have a deeply held religious view. I support my noble friend.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, one sympathises with a great deal of what has been said in support of the amendment, but it does not really fit in with what I know of the fundamental objections of the Plymouth Brethren. Those objections are to external associations. For example, although they do not believe in joining trade unions and would not join trade unions, they do not say that they will dismiss anyone who they find is a member of a trade union. That would be regarded as outside their purview. If one of their employees came up and reasonably requested to be accompanied at a hearing by another employee who is already in their employ, I cannot see why their fundamental objection of being yoked with unbelievers would apply with regard to this part of the clause. The only part of the clause to which they might object is where a trade union official came in from outside and provided that representation. But I believe that they would find no difficulty in applying nine-tenths of Clause 10. I cannot remember—I am sure that the noble Baroness is right—exactly what was said in Committee by the Minister. However, we are not talking about trade unions but about workers who reasonably request to be accompanied at the hearing.
If the noble Baroness's amendment were passed, a person could exempt himself on religious grounds or on grounds of conscience from the effect of Clause 10. An individual worker could reasonably request to be accompanied by a fellow worker and could be told by an employer, "I have a conscientious objection". I do not think that that is right.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the two noble Baronesses on the Opposition Benches have made it clear that this is a case which raises the issue of conflict of interest due to religious beliefs. They have both cited the group of the Brethren. I make it clear that I do not comment in any way on anyone's right to be a Brother. I very much endorse the positive remarks made.
However, I wish to talk about the principle. That may not arise solely for the Brothers. There may be other cases where we have to address this principle. The aim of the amendments is to exempt the Brethren from a legal obligation to give their workers the right to be accompanied—the right that we are discussing at great length in Clauses 10 to 14 of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned—perhaps she will correct me if I am wrong—that 2,000 people employed by the Brethren are not members of the Brethren. If that is the case we are concerned with their status. It may be a minority of the employees whom the Brethren employ but they may wish to join trade unions and call on the unions to assist them if they find themselves in dispute with their employer. The Brethren do not recognise that right.
1094
The amendments raise the difficult issue of whether workers' rights under law should be curtailed because of their employers' religious beliefs. The Government totally respect people's religious freedoms. But they also respect the right to freedom of association, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy made clear, and the right to form and join trade unions. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware—I believe that it was mentioned in her argument—that both religious and trade union freedoms are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. In tabling the amendments, I am sure that the noble Baroness is thinking of Article 9 of that convention which provides the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
That article provides the right. It also says that freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject to,
"such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society … for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
Article 11 provides that,
"Everyone has … the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests".
The Government's view on the issue has already been stated, as the noble Baroness recorded correctly, in another place and was debated in depth. It remains that, although the Article 11 right is subject to a similar qualification about the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the reality is that the right of individuals, most of whom have no choice but to be employees, to join trade unions would take precedence over the religious freedom of employers who are free to choose whether to employ others and how to arrange their affairs.
The Government are therefore satisfied that the Bill is in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Government do not agree that workers should be deprived of their statutory rights to be accompanied at grievance and disciplinary hearings because of the religious beliefs of their employers. Moreover, there must be a danger, however small, that that can be used as a loophole, although I do not want to make that a major argument. We are arguing the point of principle in the human rights convention.
With all respect to the Brethren, we do not accept the amendments. I note that in the 1990 legislation when the right to employment as a member of a trade union was put to both Houses and the Brethren applied for exemption, the previous government did not offer them exemption under that legislation. Purely on the ground of consistency, I hope that the arguments of principle and practice will be accepted. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I find that a disappointing reply. The Minister has explained the arguments put forward in another place more sympathetically and more clearly than was done in another place. He is saying that the rights of the trade unionists must override the rights of religious freedom.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, my statement was that the rights of the individual to make a choice

1095
about association with a union override the rights of an employer to hold a religious belief and determine individual rights of others in employment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I accept entirely that that is what the Minister said. It is a debatable point on two rights: which, one is superior to the other. The fact that it was raised in earlier legislation may or may not be right. I am not one who has always felt that everything the Conservative government did was right. Unlike some people, I think for myself on a number of occasions. It is a serious point about human rights. It is not a matter to laugh about. People who hold these beliefs are entitled to them; and in this Bill and in the 1990 legislation they are being discriminated against. In effect, that is what is being said.
I am glad that the Minister did not suggest that this issue is a major loophole. I do not think that that is true. My noble friend Lady Miller explained clearly the restrictive lives that these people lead. The idea that many people will lead similar lives and want to find a way through the law is most unlikely. I am glad that that argument has been dropped.
It is a sad day when the Government cannot accept the amendment. That we have reached this stage says something sad about society. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I shall consider carefully whether I shall return with some newly drafted amendment at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("an official of a trade union") and insert ("employed by a trade union of which he is an official")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 115 and 117. All these amendments serve to clarify important terms used in Clauses 10 to 14. Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 deal with the accompanying companion, while Amendment No. 117 deals with the hearing. I shall speak to them together.
Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 concern the list of persons who may be an accompanying person. Noble Lords will be aware that this subject has been much discussed in another place and, more recently, during consideration by this House of Clauses 10 to 13 at the second day in Committee.
I recall that the debate centred on an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It sought to minimise the scope for people who were not fellow workers to act as an accompanying person. The Government do not believe that the right should be confined to fellow 'workers only. This would cast the right too narrowly and it would exclude some of the most appropriate and effective individuals—experienced trade unionists—from performing a standard function of a trade union.
I think noble Lords from all sides of the House would not disagree with me on that point. Indeed, during the debate on 16th June, the noble Lords, Lord Gladwin of Clee and Lord Tebbit, both made helpful remarks about
1096
the wealth of expertise and experience that full-time and lay officials can bring to bear during grievance and disciplinary proceedings. However, the Government are mindful of the concerns of those who believe that allowing unqualified or inexperienced outsiders to participate in internal procedures might be unhelpful or even disruptive.
As a consequence, we have revisited the list of people who may be an accompanying person with a view to ensuring that only those who are suitably qualified for the task will be entitled to act as the accompanying person. We consider that the right for a fellow worker to act as a companion should remain as it is. Of course, in many cases the fellow worker will also be the local union representative. Fellow workers are qualified to perform this function on the basis of their intimate knowledge of the employer and local employment practices.
Our concern in these amendments is with the outsiders who can attend hearings. To that end, the first of these amendments has the effect of stating that officials who are employees of a union are suitable outsiders who can act as an accompanying person. This category includes the majority of full-time union officials. These people are extremely experienced in a variety of representative roles, and there can be no question about their competence to act as an accompanying person.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 115, limits the lay officials—that is, officials not employed by the union—who may act as an accompanying person. It does this by placing a qualifying condition on lay officials that they may act as an accompanying person only if certified in writing by their union as competent to carry out the accompanying function. As I have said, this does not affect the right of a worker to have a fellow worker who is a lay official as his companion because that is allowed under subsection (2)(c). Fellow workers are a separate category of persons who may be companions.
The amendment should provide an important measure of quality assurance to both employers and workers, shielding both parties from the incompetent or inexperienced. Workers and employers can of course jointly agree to the involvement of an outside lay official who does not possess the necessary certification. However, they are not required to do so. I should add that it is not the Government's intention to place a burden on trade unions by insisting that their lay officials undertake any formal accreditation by a third party. That would be expensive and bureaucratic. A trade union will simply need to certify in writing that its officials who are to perform this kind of work are competent so to do.
It is up to the unions to decide how they operate this accreditation process. Unions have a strong interest in ensuring that they field suitable lay representatives: otherwise, full-time officials might have to be called in to sort out difficult or botched cases. Unions stand to lose members and the confidence of employers if their service is seen to be second rate. Most trade unions already provide training for their lay representatives,

1097
often via the educational services of the TUC. I would imagine that unions will not consider issuing a certificate to new lay officials at least until they have completed a basic shop steward's course or have been in post for a certain length of time. For the purposes of clarity, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service code on the new right could well include guidance to unions on this issue. The ACAS council membership comprises some eminent trade unionists and it is well placed to advise on the matter.
These are sensible amendments that will benefit all parties to grievance and disciplinary hearings. Individuals will have the assurance that their accompanying companion is competent and employers can rest assured that their procedures will not be thwarted by inexperience or incompetence.
I turn now to Amendment No. 117. During our debates on the right to be accompanied in grievance and disciplinary hearings, we have had discussions about the definition of a hearing to which this right should apply. I am thinking in particular of observations made by my noble friend Lord Monkswell at Second Reading and of the debate on Amendment No. 266 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Razzall, during the second day of Committee on 16th June.
Noble Lords will recall that the Government rejected that amendment on the grounds that it was too widely drawn and would cast doubt on the provisions of Clauses 10 to 14. The Government have reflected on these questions and we have looked particularly at Clause 13 to see whether the definition of a hearing to which the right should apply can be improved.
It is the Government's clear intention that the right should apply where a disciplinary or grievance hearing addresses a serious issue. However, as currently drafted, subsection (4) implies that hearings about serious issues could take place at which the right would not apply because the hearings do not form part of any pre-existing procedure. If allowed to stand, the present wording might enable employers to argue that they did not operate a procedure, even though they held hearings to deal with serious grievance and disciplinary matters. It might complicate matters for workers, who would be required to demonstrate that, de facto, a procedure existed through custom and practice. It might also present problems for tribunals in deciding whether a procedure in fact exists. This issue would be particularly difficult to decide when the employer had never, or seldom, held hearings in the past. We believe that this weakness in the Bill should be addressed. This amendment contains an improved form of words that makes it clear that the right to be accompanied applies to all hearings where serious issues are at stake.
I wish to make two things clear. First, this amendment in no way affects the provision that the right applies to hearings about serious disciplinary and grievance matters only. It certainly does: we are not providing a loophole through which minor or trivial issues can slip into the right. Secondly, it remains the case that the Bill does not require employers to establish disciplinary procedures where they do not have them; nor are they required to hold a hearing where a procedure exists. Of course, as I have made clear in earlier debates on this subject, a failure by
1098
an employer to deal with a grievance or a disciplinary issue in an appropriate procedural manner can count against him or her should tribunal proceedings ever result.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government are aiming to encourage employers to establish procedures as a matter of good employment practice. This message will be underlined in the new code of practice setting out in more detail how the right to be accompanied will apply in practice and taking account of my argument to the House. I am pleased to inform noble Lords that ACAS has agreed to draw up the code. In so doing, it will, in effect, be revising and extending the existing code. ACAS has an excellent reputation for providing sound advice and practical guidance on industrial relations, and I am sure that noble Lords will join me in welcoming that news.
The amendments will ensure that, whenever an employer holds a hearing about a serious matter, the right to be accompanied—and accompanied appropriately—will apply. In so doing, it will make clear the obligations and entitlements of both employers and workers and it will remove uncertainty as to the law's intended effect. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I support the amendment entirely, but I wonder whether the Minister will consider a point raised by the Royal College of Nursing that falls slightly outside the amendment as drafted.
I understand that the Royal College of Nursing has a practice of using unpaid stewards to represent members of the college at disciplinary hearings. Those stewards are neither employed by the same organisation as the member nor paid officials of the trade union. Will the Minister confirm that Amendment No. 115 will enable the Royal College of Nursing to continue that practice?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we certainly welcome Amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 117. Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 narrow the definition of a trade union official—which, as the Minister may recall, concerned us somewhat. We were, and perhaps still are, slightly worried that there will be a new profession of trade union advocates travelling from one firm to another and intervening in problems that would be better settled internally.
We believed that the person who accompanies a worker to a hearing should either be a colleague employed by the same business, or an official of the union to which the worker belongs or which has negotiation rights with the employer. What we believe should not be allowed, because it is undesirable, is that the shop steward from union A, working for company B, can accompany worker C who is employed by company D. If that is as confusing as it sounds, the ideal solution would be to have only three parties; the employer, the worker and the union official from the union recognised by the company, unless there is no such union.
We are also concerned that the accompanying union official should at least have some qualifications or experience in disciplinary and grievance proceedings because we believe that it is all too easy for an inexperienced advocate, trying to make a name for himself, to exacerbate an already delicate situation. This

1099
is one of those instances in which I might have liked to table a constructive amendment, but I believe that it is far too late for probing amendments.
I welcome the Minister's comments on the problem that 'we believe exists and should like to learn whether he is prepared to consider further modifications either here or in the other place in order to ensure that the Bill promotes good employment relations rather than to risk unnecessary strife by outsiders.
I thank the Minister for tabling Amendment No. 117. Once again, the Government have taken on board concerns that were expressed at an earlier stage by Members on both sides of the House and by his noble friends. The new layout and few alterations in wording have made all the difference. The clause now gives a more positive definition of disciplinary proceedings, and breaking it up into separate lettered paragraphs has made it much easier to understand and has provided greater clarity.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords opposite for their generous support for the rewording of the clauses. It is clear that we gained from the good debate we had on the issue in Committee.
In answering the two questions which were raised, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that unpaid stewards could accompany provided that they are authorised by the union. It would be a question of authorisation. Secondly, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the Government do not have in mind revisiting the terms of clauses, but, if she still has doubts, many of the points she raised will have light thrown upon them by the redrafting of the ACAS code and the advice that is given under those circumstances about how good relationships between management and union, which we know are the preponderance of the relationships in this country, can be furthered everywhere within our industrial community. We should prefer to operate through the code, so perhaps that is the most promising answer at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert—
("() an official of a trade union (within that meaning) who has been certified in writing by the union as competent to act for the purposes of this section,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Complaint to employment tribunal]:
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Interpretation]:
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) For the purposes of section 10 a disciplinary hearing is a hearing which could result in—

(a) the administration of a formal warning to a worker by his employer,

(b) the taking of some other action in respect of a worker by his employer, or

(c) the confirmation of a warning issued or some other action taken.

1100
(4A) For the purposes of section 10 a grievance hearing is a hearing which concerns the performance of a duty by an employer in relation to a worker.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 8, line 11, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 118, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 119. During Committee, I suggested that the term "the United Kingdom" in Clause 13 was erroneous, since with one tiny exception the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. Moreover, the term "Great Britain" is used everywhere else in the Bill.
I sensed from the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that he had some sympathy with my point. Accordingly, I tabled Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 to rectify what appears to be a drafting anomaly. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He has raised a detailed but extremely useful point; namely, that an inconsistency exists between the definitions used to define "working day" in Schedule 1 and Clause 13. As noble Lords will recall, during the debate on 17th June the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that references to United Kingdom in Clause 13(5) had been caused by a drafting error. The noble Lord was correct; he has a very sharp eye and I am glad to see that that can exist with bifocal help.
The noble Lord will also know that I have since confirmed in writing to the noble Lord that the inconsistency does not reverse the overall effect of Clause 37, which provides that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. However, I recognise his concern that allowing such an inconsistency to stand might create unnecessary confusion on that matter. It certainly might inconvenience employers, workers and their unions when they come to apply the law in practice.
The Government are mindful of the need to reduce any scope for confusion. I am grateful to the noble Lord for spotting the error and I am happy to accept his amendments correcting it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and his kind words.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 120:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—

NATIONAL SECURITY EMPLOYEES
(". Sections 10 to 13 shall not apply in relation to a person employed for the purposes of—

(a) the Security Service,

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 120 concerns the sensitive issue of national security. As currently drafted, Clause 13(1) applies the right to be accompanied in grievance and disciplinary hearings to persons in Crown employment. It therefore applies to employment within the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters.
The staff of the security and intelligence agencies have a unique status. The sensitive nature of their employment sets them apart from other workers and we have therefore given further consideration as to their inclusion in this part of the Bill.
On reflection, we consider that it could create genuine difficulties for the security and intelligence agencies if outsider union representatives were allowed as of right to attend hearings at which highly confidential information might be disclosed. I should stress that the problem is not that such people are trade unionists; rather, the difficulty is that they are outside the security and intelligence agencies. The same difficulty would arise if the accompanying person came from any other walk of life. It is with this in mind that the Government believe that the security and intelligence agencies' staff should be excluded from the provisions on the right to be accompanied.
I am aware that the House might be concerned that employment relations in the agencies might suffer if the right to be accompanied did not apply to these staff. Obviously, staff in the agencies—just like any other workers—need to be treated fairly if they are to give of their best. I can assure the House on this point. The security and intelligence services already have good grievance and disciplinary procedures in place, which are tailored to meet their own needs, providing fair treatment yet minimising security risks. For example, the procedures allow for individuals to be accompanied at hearings, usually by fellow workers. At GCHQ, the accompanying person can be a trade union representative.
As noble Lords will be aware, there are amendments yet to be debated which, if accepted, will bring into the Bill provisions which will open up access to employment tribunals for staff engaged in security and intelligence work. That is a major step. In that context the new entitlements are relevant because they will also help to ensure that internal procedures are applied faithfully in practice. Any failure to do so may count against the agencies at the tribunals which I have just mentioned.
This amendment deals sensibly with the special case of the security and intelligence agencies in the knowledge that the agencies already operate sound procedures and have well-understood employment practices. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the Government to be flexible in this matter. They have changed the Bill so many times that they cannot say that they cannot change it any more. There has yet to be Third Reading.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Simon, says, that there is no reason why we should insist on a Clause 10 that enables someone in the Security Service or the Secret Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Headquarters to bring in people from outside. We are talking about fellow workers. Most of Clause 10 talks about the choice from among fellow workers. Surely, it would be possible to amend the Bill so that that is clear and so that those three categories of people were able to take their advisers and spokespersons from inside the organisation but not from outside. That could be done at Third Reading.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, I want to speak in a similar vein. Coming from a background as a Civil Service trade union general secretary, I know relatively little of the arrangements that apply to the Security Service or to the Secret Intelligence Service. As a trade union official in the Civil Service arena, I know much about the Government Communications Headquarters. A couple of years ago, when the Government were elected, I was personally involved in the return of trade union representation to GCHQ.
One of the issues that we have campaigned on is the unfair treatment of staff at GCHQ, as we saw it, with regard to industrial tribunals. I know that efforts have been made to provide alternatives, but I am not sure whether the Government are correct in regard to GCHQ. Have the Government had consultations with the PCS, the union involved in representing the staff at GCHQ, and what has been the out-turn of such negotiations? If there have not been any consultations or discussions with the PCS, why not? Perhaps they will be prepared to do so before we get to the final position on this legislation.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I sympathise with the arguments set out by the noble Lord, Lord Simon, as to why people employed in those categories need special consideration. Before accepting that the clause stand part, I want to ask the Minister whether the Government have considered whether there are any private sector employment areas where similar issues of security apply. I am thinking of data centres in private companies where sensitive information regarding people's financial, medical and legal records is kept and other such secure environments. There may be other situations to which the same considerations may apply. Does the Minister know whether they need to be accommodated in a similar way?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment. I did not know

1103
that this matter was to be raised. As a former member of one of the services involved, I want to express my appreciation to the Government for the fact that they have accepted and recognised that there are problems in those areas. I am not speaking of GCHQ, about which I know nothing, but I feel considerable relief and appreciation of the fact that the Government have accepted and put forward this idea.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I shall say two things to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Clearly, there is nothing on the face of the Bill to prevent employees being accompanied by a companion of their choice from within their own employment. I made that point clear when stating the case. Indeed, it is part of existing procedures that they do so. Putting such a matter on the face of the Bill is unnecessary because the right is already covered.
Of course, GCHQ workers currently can be accompanied by a union official. If I am correct—I believe I am—in some cases hearings have been held where employees have been accompanied by an outside trade union official. I believe that both cases put forward by colleagues from my own Benches are cases that are merely trying to put on the face of the Bill matters that are already covered by current practice: by a member of the same organisation accompanying the employee or, in the case of GCHQ, a union official.
I am not aware that consultations have taken place with PCS, but I am aware that GCHQ rules allow assistance by friend, colleague, welfare officer or Civil Service trade union official in oral representations, subject to the proviso that the adviser is a member of GCHQ. The argument will be considered, but I do not believe that adding anything to the face of the Bill will add to the extremely good procedures that I am aware that both services currently have in place.
On the question of the private sector's interest in having separate arrangements, we have consulted widely on the terms of the Bill to date. I am sure that those cases have been adequately put. Of course, where there are security issues, the nature of ACAS advice is helpful in outlining the way in which matters can be taken forward. However, I do not believe that the face of the Bill is the place for differentiating private sector experiences. For that reason, we do not intend to change the way in which the procedures are currently written.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Unfair Dismissal of Striking Workers]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 79, line 3, leave out ("eight") and insert ("four")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a short amendment that I hope I can explain with equal brevity.
Along with other industrial nations, we ascribe to the right to strike rather than the more civilised, less disruptive and less aggressive process of compulsory binding arbitration, a topic that I may bring to your Lordships' attention when time permits on another occasion.
An employee exercising his rights to impose that sanction on his employer should not be subject to dismissal unless he commits some tortuous or criminal act or unless a time arises when it is reasonable for his employment to be terminated. The difference between us and the Government is how long that time should be. We believe that eight weeks is grossly excessive. Very few industrial disputes last for as long or longer than that. That period can only be regarded as a potential restriction on the rights of the employer to protect his business after a reasonable time.
The present provisions make any dismissal within the eight-week period unfair, whatever the behaviour of the union or the employee. Let us suppose that as a bargaining tactic the union declines to negotiate or merely goes through the motions of negotiating for the greater part of the eight week period; that it refuses to enter conciliation, to take the dispute to an independent arbitrator or to honour an established agreement to resolve disputes. It may do any or all of those things in order to weaken the employer and to reduce its powers to oppose a claim.
No doubt the Government have chosen this long period remembering the outcome of the dispute in which the print unions were involved with Rupert Murdoch. The purpose of this Bill, according to the Government, is to be even-handed between employer and employee, which it most certainly is not in this case. They also say it is to foster good industrial relations, which I believe the unbalanced provision in this clause most certainly will not do. On the contrary, it will only serve to encourage obstinacy and a continuance of bad relations after the dispute is resolved, as inevitably it will be.
Bearing in mind that a strike comes at the end of a period of negotiations or discussions, four weeks should be long enough to concentrate the minds of the employees and their representatives on finally reaching a settlement without inflicting further loss and damage to their employers and possibly their co-workers who may not be involved in the dispute. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this issue was discussed at some length in the House of Commons and an amendment was tabled by the noble Baroness at Committee stage, although she decided not to move it. We do indeed intend to deter employers from dismissing workers soon after industrial action has begun. Precipitate dismissals are undesirable, they often complicate industrial disputes, and they make them more difficult to resolve. Dismissal should be seen as one of the last resorts, not one of the first. That is, of course, the approach taken by the large majority of businesses. Relatively few employers ever consider sacking workers who take industrial action. Only poor employers, or those involved in prolonged and intractable disputes, seriously consider this option.
Our proposals mean that it will be automatically unfair to dismiss workers for the first eight weeks of action. We want to set a period which allows a reasonable time for the parties to resolve their dispute and therefore avoid the possibility of dismissals. In our judgment—and I admit it is a judgment—eight weeks

1105
gives enough time for detailed and serious discussions to take place, possibly involving third parties such as ACAS.
The noble Baroness's amendment to reduce the period to four weeks is too short a time span for sensible negotiations always to take place. Obviously, we hope that disputes can be settled within a shorter period. Most of them are. Whenever that happens the eight weeks does not apply. Indeed, our proposals actually encourage early settlements by encouraging negotiation. However, it is not our intention to put pressure on the parties to reach agreement within a period when it is just not possible to do so. Some disputes are complicated, they take time and skilful negotiation to resolve. We have therefore framed the protection to ensure that the parties have sufficient time to work through their problems.
The noble Baroness argued that this was an incentive for unions to delay real negotiations towards the end of an eight week period. I cannot accept that. When a dispute is taking place the people on strike are not getting any money, or at least they are not getting any money from the employers. There is always an incentive for unions to resolve a dispute as early as they possibly can, and for that an eight week period is reasonable. It provides enough opportunity to hold constructive negotiations and explore all avenues to resolve the dispute. I hope the noble Baroness will not press this amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister said that it was a question of judgment and he is quite right. He thinks eight weeks is correct. I think that four weeks is correct. He mentioned that he thought four weeks was precipitate. I do not think it is precipitate. We have become so friendly over this Bill that it would have been nice to make a suggestion of splitting the difference and going for six weeks, but, listening to the noble Lord the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 80, line 13, leave out ("(7A)") and insert ("(7C)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendment No. 122 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. Their purpose is to ensure that the new circumstances, in which selection for redundancy amounts to unfair dismissal added to Section 105 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 5, is inserted at the correct point in the section, and that the cross-references in that section to that new circumstance, and another circumstance added by the Tax Credits Act 1999, are right.
In drafting paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 we have unintentionally made incorrect consequential amendments to Section 105 of the 1996 Act regarding the right not to be dismissed by means of selective redundancy. Section 105 has to be changed in the light of the new right introduced under Schedule 5 to ensure that an employee cannot be fairly dismissed by selective
1106
redundancy if he is either selected for participating in official industrial action during the first eight weeks of industrial action, or if he is selected for redundancy after the eight week period and the employer has failed to take reasonable steps to resolve the dispute.
To take account of the new provisions, paragraph 5 inserts a new subsection 7A into Section 105 of the 1996 Act. However, since its enactment in 1996, subsections 7A and 7B have already been inserted into the Act (via the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Tax Credits Act 1999 respectively.)
These amendments simply ensure that all the references are right. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord the Minister that I am very grateful for his explanation of what these amendments are about. I have to say that because they were tabled so late I did not have an opportunity to read them properly and I could only understand about 7A changing to 7C and 7A being got rid of and putting in 7B, and then, further on, we had to take out 7A and insert 7C. Because the explanation came late I did not understand it and I think that the note I have is not really joined to the amendment. As it concerns Schedule 5 perhaps the noble Lord the Minister could answer a question—either by way of a note from his advisers or, alternatively, by writing to me.
I understand that the Bill provides for a worker who is dismissed during that protected period of eight weeks, which we were discussing a moment ago, to be able to claim compensation for unfair dismissal. Will the noble Lord the Minister say what factors will determine the amount of compensation payable? More specifically, will there be scope for the award to be reduced if the employer can demonstrate that the union failed to behave reasonably during this period? If the noble Lord the Minister is able to help me with that I shall be most grateful. Otherwise I shall feel that I have merely stood up out of turn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what these amendments do is to add selection for redundancy as a possible new circumstance which amounts to unfair dismissal. That is all it is doing. It does not change any of the unfair dismissal procedures.
On the issue of what will affect the compensation payments, that clearly is a complicated issue outside the scope of these amendments and I will therefore have to write, in detail if necessary, to the noble Lady. In brief, the answer is that the award will be based on the tribunal's assessment of the individual's circumstances and behaviour. A tribunal may take into account any misconduct which led to his dismissal but that does not include his participation in industrial action. If the individual's conduct has contributed to a selection for dismissal—for example, behaviour on the picket line—then it can be taken into account by the tribunal in determining both the case and the award.
I hope that that may be enough and that I may be spared the duty of writing to the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 123 and 124:
Page 80, line 14, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(7B) (inserted by Schedule 3 to the Tax Credits Act 1999)")
Page 80, line 15, leave out ("(7A)") and insert ("(7C)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have been spoken to. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK-PLACE ON GROUNDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of that person's sexual orientation.
(2) In subsection (1) ''employment matter" includes—

(a) the offer or refusal of employment;

(b) the termination of employment;

(c) terms and conditions of employment;

(d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;

(e) promotion and career progression.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

(a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;

(b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;

(c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above.

(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, 'with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 125 it might be convenient if I spoke also to Amendment No. 126. Amendment No. 125 is the same amendment that was moved from these Benches in Committee which goes to the requirement to insert a clause in the Bill dealing with the issue of discrimination against employees or potential employees on the grounds of their sexual orientation. We have brought this back today but we do not propose to re-debate the issues that were discussed extensively in Committee.
It is certainly common ground between the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Government Benches that this is a serious problem for employees and potential employees, so I do not really need to rehearse on Report the nature of the problem. There have been some extremely tragic and difficult cases in recent years. The Government accept that there is a problem. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, indicated last year, when the Bill on sexual orientation and discrimination ran out of time, that this was an area where the Government were proposing to legislate.
Having listened carefully to what the Minister said in Committee, and having read the Government's remarks in Hansard—, I wonder when we are going to have action in relation to the problem. The Government have
1108
emphasised that the Bill is the last of their cornerstone pieces of legislation affecting rights of employment in this country and that the regulations being made under it and under previous legislation set the framework under which employer and employee rights will be established. But we are now half-way through the Parliament leading to the next general election. If no action is taken in the area by way of this Bill, my fear is that we will have no legislation this side of the next general election to deal with the issue.
The response of the Minister in Committee was that it was a very complicated issue and that the Government were having extensive consultations upon it. Secondly, they had received the report from the Equal Opportunities Commission which said that they must legislate. Thirdly, the attitude was, "It is not my ministry which is responsible. Therefore, don't ask me to do anything about it because, after all, I am a DTI Minister not a Department for Education Minister." I do not regard that as a satisfactory response on such an important point. I return to the fundamental tenet of my argument; namely, that the Government are saying that this is the final piece of their fundamental legislation on employment relations. Surely it is in this Bill that the framework of protection ought to be inserted to enable the necessary consultation to be undertaken, the necessary regulations to be drafted, and the necessary preparations to be made before those regulations are implemented. It must be 'within the framework of this Bill, not a future Bill, which, I fear, we will not get this side of the next general election.
Amendment No. 126 deals with potential discrimination with regard to age. This is a totally different issue to the one covered by Amendment No. 125. Again, I do not want to tease the Minister as we did in Committee with the fact that the Government have changed their mind on this issue since they were in opposition. At that time they made it very clear that, once elected, a Labour Government would bring in legislation to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of age. The then Tory Government took the view that this was best dealt with by a voluntary code. Although I do not know what the current Tory position is., the Government's position has now changed since their days in opposition. They now believe that this would be best dealt with by way of a voluntary code.
Having read carefully what the Minister said in Committee, the major thrust of my argument is that the arguments that were used against our amendments were put forward on the assumption that, on the face of it, such amendments sought to deal with the very tricky issues which would have to be dealt with in the consultation process. However, that is far from the case. Both amendments simply provide a legislative framework within which the Government can bring in the necessary regulations to outlaw the practices which, after very necessary and extensive consultation, would be determined as appropriate.
If we look at what is happening on the ground with the minimum wage Act and the working-time directive, we find that the Government are conducting a never-ending consultation process with employers and business in order to establish amendments to the

1109
regulations and modify them. I envisage that that process will happen with regard to the age discrimination regulations which are covered under the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the Government to think again on both of these important issues. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I was, unfortunately, unable to be present in Committee when these issues were debated. I had attached my name to the amendments, but I was suffering from flu and was unable to be here. I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider these amendments seriously. I am sure that noble Lords will recall that I have on several occasions sought to introduce legislation on the subject of sexual orientation by way of Private Members' Bills. On two occasions, the Bills I introduced into the House gained the support of your Lordships but failed to make any progress in the other place.
Therefore, this Bill provides us with an opportunity to deal with discrimination in the workplace, which we know does take place. Indeed, the Government acknowledge that it is a problem. It cannot be too often stated that there is no protection in law against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; no protection in law against being treated less favourably; no protection against being paid less; no protection against harassment, no protection against discrimination in promotion and appointment; and no protection, really, against dismissal. I do not want to go into the details here because, as the noble Lord, Razzall, said, they were fully dealt with in Committee. However, there are employers who have equal opportunities policies which cover sexual orientation. In my view, it is necessary to try to change bigoted attitudes, which we know exist. Amending the legal framework is one of the ways in which this can be done. Therefore, I support the amendment.
I also support the amendment as far as concerns age discrimination. I was involved in the work done by the Carnegie Third Age Committee some years ago. Its report was debated in the House at that time. The research undertaken by the committee revealed very considerable discrimination on grounds of age throughout UK industry and commerce. This was even more marked during the years in which mass redundancies, especially in manufacturing industry, became common. Many people who took early retirement did so rather unwillingly, knowing that it was unlikely that they would secure other employment despite the fact that they were some years off retirement age. Some firms later regretted their willingness to dispense with experienced and loyal staff. I therefore welcome the amendment. Having had the opportunity to consider the matter since Committee, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to offer us something in response to the issues which have been raised.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, express my support for these amendments. There is a certain illogicality about discrimination. When women were first admitted
1110
to jobs in the Northern Irish Civil Service, they were allowed to have three children but were not allowed to be married. They were not allowed to be married because, in those days, it was thought that women who worked were not married. However, because the service wanted to be non-discriminatory, it was decided to extend to women all the other qualifications for male employees. This included the limitation to three children, which was understood within certain quarters of the unionist community to be an anti-Catholic provision. That was a really curious mish-mash of logic.
When you get discrimination surviving in what is in part an anti-discriminatory culture, you get these illogicalities multiplied. It is surely better to accept the basic simple point that the only ground on which you select candidates for a job is fitness to do that job, and the only ground on which you keep people who are doing a job is the competence with which they do it. If one accepts that, one ought to accept that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is wrong, contrary to the interests of the person and contrary to the interests of the business, just like discrimination on grounds of race, gender or any other grounds.
I do not assert that there is any objective right to work, but I think that there is a right to contest for work, to compete for it on equal terms. When the penalties for not actively seeking work are so severe and when the penalties for voluntary unemployment are so severe, it is vitally important that that should be the case. This is particularly relevant to homosexuals, because a large proportion of those who lose work because of their sexual orientation are forced out by a process of harassment of the sort which women working for the first time in a previously all-male industry have come to know painfully well.
In these cases, if you cannot convince a tribunal that you were forced out, you are found guilty of voluntary unemployment and you lose benefit for anything up to 26 weeks. That is a severe penalty for something which is in no way your fault. I think it important that the law should not encourage that. I also think that this is an issue of public policy and that thinking of it from the point of view of the Department of Social Security accepting this amendment would be in line with government policy because the basic thrust of government policy is to remove obstacles to people seeking work. They want more people to be able to seek work and therefore fewer to be dependent on the budget of the Department of Social Security. That, I think, with small qualifications, is an objective we would all share. However, people who are discriminated against for their orientation cannot effectively seek work, so the Government are pickling a rod for their own back. Even the Treasury might see an interest in accepting this amendment.
I also support Amendment No. 126. There are arguments of some importance for that arising from the welfare reform Bill which we shall consider next week. That Bill contains clauses which compel recently bereaved widows to start actively seeking work after six months and which deny incapacity benefit to people who have not paid any contributions within the previous two years. That is an increase in the compulsion to seek

1111
work. In return for that people deserve an adequate and equal chance of getting work. Unless Amendment No. 126 is accepted, they will not have it. If the Minister does not accept this tonight, we may return to it on the welfare reform Bill.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I explained in Committee, the Government are sympathetic to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, in this amendment and in Amendment No. 126 which I shall also address.
As I said in Committee we stated in our manifesto,
"We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
However, I think we are talking about means here. I hope I explained in Committee that given the number of different issues involved here I do not think that this Bill is the appropriate place to deal with them. If we do not deal with this matter properly we are in danger of making the situation worse rather than better.
The Government have repeatedly said that they deplore discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and are appalled by the treatment which some gay men and lesbians experience. We recognise that there is a gap in the protection we offer to those discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation, in comparison to measures to prohibit discrimination on grounds of race and disability, for example.
However, for the reasons that I gave in Committee, this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for this large topic. Not only would it be a radical step away from the intentions set out in the Fairness at Work White Paper on which we consulted, but it would rightly require extensive consultations in its own right. I do not accept that this can be dealt with simply by regulations. As I shall mention later, I believe that there are some deficiencies in the way this amendment is drafted which would not permit it to be covered in regulations. We must get the basic principles right and cover all the issues. I see no reason why there should not be another piece of legislation. This is a bedrock piece of legislation that does not preclude other pieces of legislation being introduced.
However, this does not mean that the Government are ignoring this important issue. As I said in Committee, the Equal Opportunities Commission formally presented to the Government last November its recommendations following a review of sex equality legislation. These included a proposal that there should be specific legal protection for lesbians and gay men. The Government—particularly the Department for Education and Employment, which lead, on this policy—are carefully considering this and the EOC's other recommendations. However, there were 62 recommendations and therefore the matter requires careful consideration.
We are also considering the Better Regulation Task Force's suggestion of a non-statutory code of practice. The task force is generally in favour of making current legislation work better. It also points out the importance of evaluating a code of practice before taking any further steps. There is also a further angle which has to be considered properly; namely, the wider European
1112
developments. I am, of course, referring to Article 13 in the Amsterdam Treaty. Now that this new treaty is in force, the Commission will be able to bring forward recommendations which the Government will consider positively and constructively.
This Government well appreciate that this is an important and sensitive issue. We need to make sure that whatever action is taken, the results will not be counter-productive to gay men and lesbians. We will want to be sure that in removing injustice we are doing so thoughtfully and in full knowledge of the impact of any legislation, and that would require full consultation with many relevant parties such as industry, the Forces and the Churches. In Committee we discussed the different angles to this matter. If we do not approach them properly, I believe that will be counter-productive.
For that reason I regret that the Government cannot support this proposed new clause. Although it is not clear whether a legislative measure would be the appropriate way to proceed, I hope that those proposing this new clause are reassured of our commitment to act in this area. Our differences are over means rather than the objectives. I trust that this amendment will be withdrawn.
I turn to the amendment promoting age diversity and tackling age discrimination in employment. This is a key part of the Government's strategy of building a country where everyone, whether young or old, can play their full part. The question the Government have asked, and continue to ask, is: which is the most effective way to achieve this goal? It would have been easy to legislate, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has proposed. But the use of legislation—again I am afraid that I repeat what was said in Committee—has not proved to be the best way forward in this complex area.
As noble Lords are aware, my honourable friend the Minister for Employment carried out a year-long consultation on this issue. The result of this consultation was the publication of a non-statutory code of practice on 14th June this year. The Government developed this code with some key social partners, including the TUC, CBI, the Employers Forum on Age, Age Concern, the Institute of Personnel and Development, the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services and the Institute of Management. This code has been widely welcomed. Those groups which in the past have lobbied for legislation in this area have praised the code. The Better Regulation Task Force has also endorsed the Government's approach.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not repeat all that I said in Committee. Suffice to say that the code's effectiveness will be fully evaluated by February 2001. The results of that will help inform future plans for legislation in this area, including the approach the Government will take to proposals for EU directives or regulations under Article 13 of the new Treaty of Amsterdam.
This Government are far from inactive in this area. We share the commitment of noble Lords to action against unjustified age discrimination in the work-place. Where we differ is over the means. We do not believe the time is right for a legislative measure such as that

1113
which has been proposed. We have just produced the code and the essential thing now is to evaluate what progress we make on that. I am sure that the House would agree with me that we should see how well the code works before considering whether regulations are necessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I thank him for a very careful reply. In order to avoid wasting his or his colleague's time, perhaps he can give us one more piece of information. If this is not the right place to press for Amendment No. 125, where is?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hoped that I had made it clear that the Government were considering this issue. We shall come forward with proposals, and that would be the time to join with us in pressing this issue forward.
8 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously I am disappointed that the spirit of co-operation which has been created over the Bill has not extended to meeting the points that I and my noble friends have made. Having listened to the answer given by the Minister, the Government are on stronger ground on Amendment No. 126 than they are on Amendment No. 125. In both Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 I have no doubt about the Government's commitment. In Amendment No. 126 they have followed the commitment with action. I am worried that with Amendment No. 125 their commitment has not been followed with action and, as I indicated earlier, I fear that we are a long way off action. In withdrawing the two amendments tonight, I give notice that we may wish to return to them, certainly to Amendment No. 125, at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 127:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE: COMMUNITIES
(". The following shall be inserted after section 44 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (exclusions: voluntary workers)—
"Religious and other communities: resident workers.
44A.—(1) A residential member of a community to which this section applies does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of employment by the community.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), this section applies to a community if—

(a) it is a charity or is established by a charity,

(b) a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature, and

(c) all or some of its members live together for that purpose.

(3) This section does not apply to a community which—

(a) is an independent school, or

(b) provides a course of further or higher education.

(4) The residential members of a community are those who live together as mentioned in subsection (2)(c).
(5) In this section—

(a) "charity" has the same meaning as in section 44, and

(b) "independent school" has the same meaning as in section 463 of the Education Act 1996 (in England and Wales), section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (in Scotland) and Article 2 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (in Northern Ireland).

(6) In this section "course of further or higher education" means—

(a) in England and Wales, a course of a description referred to in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 or Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

(b) in Scotland, a course or programme of a description mentioned in or falling within section 6(1) or 38 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;

(c) in Northern Ireland, a course of a description referred to in Schedule I to the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 or a course providing further education within the meaning of Article 3 of that Order." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 127. I bring forward the amendment in the expectation that we will all agree that this is a common-sense measure.
The Low Pay Commission has recently recommended that the position of the intentional communities under the national minimum wage should be clarified. Members of those communities are not "workers" in the way the term is normally understood. Resident members of intentional communities share living accommodation and tasks with the purpose of advancing a common religious or spiritual aim. They are often required to engage in work on behalf of the community in which they live. Their basic requirements such as meals and accommodation are met by the community. In many instances, residential members also receive small sums of money. Some communities treat their residential members as workers, issuing contracts of employment. But these workers are working because they share common aims and aspirations. They reside together as one community, sharing in the common tasks. Their work is driven by considerations quite apart from the desire for financial reward.
These individuals would probably not be regarded as "workers" at all but for the arrangements that many of the communities have put in place—for example, by issuing contracts of employment. Indeed, I should make clear that the traditional religious communities in monasteries and the like are in any case completely outside the legislation already as there are no contractual obligations and therefore no workers' rights. But certain

1115
other communities run the risk of being caught up in the new law if we do not make this amendment. That is because in many cases we understand that their arrangements could be construed as creating contractual obligations.
Let me be absolutely clear: this exemption is about members of genuine intentional communities. Workers who are not "members" will be protected by the National Minimum Wage Act and will benefit from the protection in that Act against detriment and unfair dismissal. We do not wish any establishments which are not ''intentional" in this sense to be included; that is why we specify that those working for residential educational bodies will not be exempted.
These are genuinely unique circumstances and only some 1,000 individuals will be covered by the exclusion. The Low Pay Commission recommended that the exemption would need to be,
"clearly and tightly refined … we would not want to inadvertently create loopholes".
We have done this. I therefore commend this amendment to the House.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I wish to express the gratitude of these Benches for the inclusion of Amendment No. 127. The Minister has spoken about the intentional communities, which are, in a way, a modern off-shoot of the monasteries which are very much a feature of our culture. They are places where men and women practise an extremely modest way of life as a vocation in order to benefit their fellow human beings. They include the L'Arche communities, where remarkable work is done with people suffering from acute learning difficulties; the Pilsdon community; and the Emmaus UK community, which supports homeless people and which began in my own diocese. The acceptance of the case for making an exception of these communities is very generous and gracious. I wish to express my gratitude for that.
Part of the amendment makes explicit the fact that the exemption will not be applicable to communities providing courses of further or higher education. As I am about to become principal of one such community and thus to leave both my diocese and your Lordships' House, I wish to place on record my deep gratitude for the kindnesses which have been extended to me here. I count it an extraordinary privilege to have participated, on a very modest scale, in your Lordships' proceedings. I shall continue in my new place of work to offer my prayers for the success of your Lordships' deliberations.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I, too, welcome the statement from the Minister. People have expressed concern to me about the possibility of loopholes in the legislation. Their main concern is that people who work for or are employed by charities and communities will not be eligible for the minimum wage. There should be no loopholes through which one can drive a tractor. We should be specific about what we are saying: that people who work for or are employed by charities and communities will be: eligible for the minimum wage.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment by which the Government seek
1116
to alter the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. We think it is right that there should be this exemption and we on this side of the House are pleased about it.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that when the National Minimum Wage Bill was before the House I proposed an amendment then that would have given the Secretary of State power by Statutory Instrument to give total or partial exemption in certain areas. I will not repeat what was said, other than to say that the last area was occupations or categories of persons. It would have been a power that the Secretary of State need not have used, but we would not have had to come back with further legislation.
Your Lordships were kind enough to pass my amendment—the only one that was passed—with a generous majority of 58. We won with the very welcome support of the Liberal Democrat Benches at that time. However, when the Bill was returned to the other House, the Minister of State drew himself to his full height and denounced the amendment as one which wrecked the whole Bill. It certainly did not.
Perhaps I may make one point. The beneficiaries of this amendment are persons who reside in a religious community; they do so voluntary. I have heard what the noble Lord who has just spoken said. I hope he will forgive me, but I cannot remember his name.
Lord Brookman: Brookman, my Lords.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, he: will never forgive me. He is always so nice to me outside the Chamber. I am terribly sorry that I did not remember his name.
There is another category of persons whose situation is not voluntary. I refer to people who by reason of one incapacity or another live in some other sort of community or need to attend day centres and who for therapeutic reasons do some sort of work for which they receive token pay. I am not talking about people who are just employed but about those who are able to do only a little in certain circumstances. They, and those who look after them, are no less deserving of exemption from this legislation than a group of devout monks who work to support themselves and share the income. It is right that such people have been exempted; I should have liked the provision to extend further.
However, we cannot re-fight old battles. Any exemption from the legislation has our support and we welcome the amendment. The only other point I wish to make is that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 127A, which is grouped with this one.
As I explained, we believe that this group is no less deserving and certainly needs to be exempted. It comprises those whose employment chances are impaired because of one of various misfortunes: they have fallen into a category through absolute disability or sickness or as the result of an accident. They include, for example, people with learning difficulties living in sheltered accommodation who are able to engage in craftwork which is then sold by the establishment's gift shop for the benefit of the residents. They include

1117
people with some physical disability which prevents them from working full-time or at the same rate as a colleague on the next bench. They include those whose medical advisers believe that working will help improve their physical or mental condition but who find it difficult to find regular employment.
In 1998, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an organisation whose opinions are generally approved of by the Government, said in a report:
"Disabled people may have been affected by a much wider and systematic shift in employment patterns. As the supply of labour expanded faster than demand, employers have been much more selective in their choice of staff. Marginal workers, such as disabled people, have been excluded … Preliminary evidence shows that very few have found jobs".
In its evidence to the Low Pay commission for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act, the National Institute for the Blind stated (at page 39):
"Blind and partially sighted persons face bleak prospects in employment … Significantly blind and partially sighted people are concentrated in lower paying semi-skilled and routine manual occupations. Many … are therefore caught in poverty even when they are working".
In the debate on this very amendment just a little over a year ago, I said that,
"It is simplistic to suggest that the solution to their problems will be to increase their pay entitlement. On the contrary, we believe that such action would increase their problems. It would make employers even less inclined to employ disabled people so long as they can employ able-bodied persons to do the same work for the same pay, possibly at a higher rate of productivity".—[Official Report, 22/6/98; col. 63.]
I go further than that. It would be positively disruptive if two people working side by side, one being substantially less productive and subject to frequent absences for medical reasons, were to be paid at the same rate.
The Government saw two main objections to my amendment. First, they said that it would be used as a device by unscrupulous employers to exploit vulnerable people. That is not right. There are many publicly minded employers who employ disabled workers, at some inconvenience and expense to themselves, and regard it as a duty, rather than doing it for some ulterior and unworthy motive.
As recently as 20th June, the Sunday Telegraph made a powerful case for exemption for the disabled. The article is far too long for me to quote in full, but I urge the Minister to read it, as I feel certain that he will reject my amendment. If he were to read that article over the weekend, he might speak differently about my amendment at Third Reading. To paraphrase the article heavily, it states that as many as 10,000 disabled and mentally handicapped people could lose their jobs due to the rigid application of the national minimum wage rules.
There is much more that I could say in speaking to the amendment. But it is late. I believe that I have made my point. I urge all three Ministers on the Front Bench opposite to obtain a copy of that Sunday Telegraph. It would make excellent weekend reading. At this stage, I should be happy to hear the Minister's response.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, first, in relation to Amendment No. 127, I assure the House and noble Lords who have spoken that we see this as a specific and tightly constrained provision to deal with a small group of 1,000 individuals in particular circumstances. That is extremely important.
We are delighted to be able to deal with this problem in a common-sense way and meet the needs of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely. Perhaps I may say on behalf of the whole House that we shall miss his wise advice and we wish him well in retirement.
Turning to Amendment No. 127A, perhaps I may promptly prove that we do see this as a tightly constrained amendment. I shall of course steel myself and read the article in the Sunday Telegraph. However, I had hoped that one extremely small, fully justified and tightly drawn amendment for intentional communities would not lead to a call from the Opposition for a larger amendment and one which rests on extremely shaky grounds.
I am aware that the amendment was also tabled and debated when the National Minimum Wage Bill was in this House. The Government's position has not changed since then. Neither has the advice of the Low Pay Commission, nor indeed the views of the majority of organisations representing disabled workers and their employers.
The position is this. There can be no question of discriminating on grounds of ability when it comes to the right to the national minimum wage. I believe that it is morally wrong to differentiate in this way. I do not imply, of course, that the noble Baroness seeks to discriminate unfairly. I know that the amendment was tabled with the best of intentions. But a statutory minimum wage is there to protect the weakest and most vulnerable from exploitation. And those who have a disability are often (though by no means always) in this category as workers.
Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to quote from the Association for Supported Employment, which is widely regarded as one of the foremost groups representing disabled workers. The association stated in a letter about this issue to Margaret Hodge at the DfEE that its members,
"unreservedly support the national minimum wage",
and that,
"people with a disability should not be made exempt from the national minimum wage".
There is no escaping the complexity of the issue as it relates to benefits and employment programmes. Of course this department is working closely with Ministers at the DfEE, the DSS and the Department of Health to examine the impact of the minimum wage law on the overall package of work-related and disability benefits for people in this position.
Indeed, the House may wish to be aware that the Department of Social Security has already increased the earnings limit for those carrying out therapeutic work to take into account their increased earnings as a result of

1119
the national minimum wage so that they will not suffer any loss in the hours that they can work while claiming incapacity benefit.
But so far as changes to the National Minimum Wage Act are concerned, I stress again that exemptions are not the answer. I leave the last word with the Low Pay Commission. Having taken evidence from numerous organisations in this area, the commission concluded that,
"there are compelling arguments for treating disabled workers in the same way as other workers".
I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 127A not moved.]
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 128:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
ACAS: REPORTS
(" .—(1) In section 253(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)) Act 1992 (ACAS: annual report) for "calendar year" there shall be substituted "financial year".
(2) In section 265(1) of that Act (ACAS: report about CAC) for "calendar year" there shall be substituted "financial year".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to government Amendments Nos. 128 and 133 together. Both amendments deal with our proposals to amend the period of the reporting cycles for ACAS, the CAC and the certification officer respectively.
Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the annual reports of ACAS, the CAC and the Certification Officer are required to be produced on a calendar year basis; however, the accounts of the three bodies are required to be produced on a financial year basis. The ACAS council has indicated that it would be helpful to it to produce its annual report on a financial basis. This would enable it to follow current Treasury guidance. The quinquennial review currently being undertaken on ACAS has also indicated that this would be a sensible measure to adopt. The Government fully agree with ACAS and the quinquennial review that this is therefore a sensible policy step to take. It is fully consistent with open government requirements. In changing the period of the ACAS reporting cycle, it is of course eminently sensible to change the reporting cycles of the CAC and the certification officer on a similar basis. I urge noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Certification Officer]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 82, line 30, at end insert—
("() It shall be lawful for the court or certification officer to declare an application by the same person alleging any similar or related failure described in this section to be vexatious so long as in the individual matter the declaration does not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights."")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is to deal with the problem of a vexatious applicant, colloquially a serial complainer. It is someone who
1120
launches complaint proceedings on some grounds or other that are dismissed. He then launches another claim on the same or possibly similar grounds that might well have been raised in the first case. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again." That is not a fanciful scenario. In another context I imagine that most employment panels can tell stories of their regular customers.
The High Court has power to debar a vexatious litigant. Now that employment tribunals, the CAC and certification officers are taking on so much more work of a quasi-judicial nature, it is essential that they should have the power to make things difficult for the persistent claimant who persistently fails to justify his claims.
This clause meets some part of the problem by making the remedy available to the certification officer so that he at least can quickly dispose of vexatious claims. There is one necessary qualification. Debarring an application for being vexatious is not to take place if, in the particular circumstances of the case, it would infringe the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention permits debarring steps in appropriate cases. If such procedure is appropriate to the ordinary civil courts, there is no reason why it should not be available to the certification officer. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as the noble Baroness made clear, this amendment deals with vexatious litigants, serial complainers. It was, of course, discussed at length during Committee stage when the Government introduced an amendment to enable the certification officer to refuse to hear complaints by individuals who have been declared vexatious by the courts. The purpose was to ensure that, so far as possible, the certification officer is not distracted by unnecessary cases. This is now set out in paragraph 23 of Schedule 6.
The noble Baroness tabled a similar amendment at Committee stage, although she subsequently was kind enough not to move it. Then, as now, there was much common ground between us in terms of our objectives. We both want to see a safeguard inserted to provide some protection for the CO. The difference is that our provisions cover all the CO's complaints jurisdictions whereas this amendment deals with only one of those jurisdictions: complaints about access to a union's accounting records. This does not sit well with the existing law on the treatment of vexatious litigants.
The noble Baroness also seeks to give the CO a power to declare people to be vexatious litigants. We consider this to be a powerful sanction. The CO has a very specialised role which does not include powers to impose penalties on individual union members. It would be inappropriate, in our view, for the CO to be given a wider power to declare individuals vexatious litigants.
The amendment refers to the European Convention on Human Rights. Denying individuals access to the courts or the certification officer is a very serious matter. It clearly raises human rights issues, as the noble Baroness rightly said. We have deliberately framed our proposals to ensure they provide some basic safeguards to vexatious litigants. For example, the certification

1121
officer will be obliged to consider all applications made by these individuals. He cannot just ignore them. If he feels the vexatious litigant has a proper case, then he can hear it. Likewise, our proposals allow for the vexatious litigant to apply to the courts for his case to be heard, if the certification officer refuses to determine an application.
In view of this explanation, I hope the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment and instead lend her support to the government provisions in this area, to which I shall speak on the following three amendments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am pleased to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 132:
Page 88, line 30, at end insert—
("(3A) A person may not apply under subsection (1) in relation to a claim if he is entitled to apply under section 80 in relation to the claim.")
Page 91, line 43, leave out ("VII") and insert ("VIIA")
Page 91, line 46, after ("apply") insert ("to a complaint under section 37E(1)(b) or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for easing the passage to government Amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 132 together. They are technical amendments intended to remove inconsistencies in the Bill concerning Schedule 6 and the certification officer.
I begin with Amendments Nos. 130 and 131. As I have already noted, the Government introduced an amendment in Committee to enable the certification officer to refuse to hear complaints by individuals who had been declared vexatious by the courts. In drafting the schedule, only applications made under Section 41 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 were exempt from the vexatious litigants provisions. After further reflection, another exemption from the provisions has been identified.
Under Section 37E(1)(b) of the 1992 Act, the certification officer, on receiving a complaint from a trade union member regarding the financial affairs of a union, must consider exercising the powers given to him under Sections 37A and 37B of the 1992 Act. These powers enable the certification officer to call upon a trade union to produce records relating to its financial affairs where the CO thinks there is good reason for the union to do so. Likewise, the CO has the authority to appoint inspectors to investigate the financial affairs of trade unions in certain circumstances.
The CO does not actually determine complaints under these sections. His role is regulatory rather than quasi-judicial. As a result of his own inquiries or the findings of the inspectors, he might, in appropriate circumstances, decide to prosecute for offences falling within his competence or refer the matter to other agencies, like the police. In this sense, he is not dealing with union members as litigants but as individuals who have provided him with information in his regulatory
1122
capacity. It would therefore be inappropriate to include such provisions which deal with the treatment of vexatious litigants.
There is another reason why this section should be excluded from the vexatious litigants part of the schedule. If the CO takes the decision not to exercise the powers given to him under Sections 37A and 37B, he must inform the union member of his decision. However, he is not required to give reasons for refusing to exercise the powers, though he may choose to do so.
Conversely, under the vexatious litigants provisions newly added to the Bill in paragraph 23 of the schedule, the CO will always be required to give reasons for refusing the application.
As the schedule is currently drafted, Section 37E(1)(b) of the 1992 Act falls within the vexatious litigants provisions. Consequently, if a union member were to take a complaint to the CO under Section 37E(1)(b) and if the CO decided not to exercise his power, there would be no requirement on the CO to give reasons for the refusal if the complainant has not been declared vexatious. Perversely, if the complainant has been declared a vexatious litigant, the CO would be required to give reasons for the refusal. This would obviously create an illogical situation for the certification officer and highlights the contradictory nature of the provisions already existing under Section 37E(1)(b) and those contained under paragraph 23 of Schedule 6.
Amendment No. 130 therefore removes complaints referred to the certification officer under Section 37E(1)(b) from the new vexatious litigant provisions.
I turn now to Amendment No. 131 which also relates to the vexatious litigant provisions. As I have already noted, paragraph 23 of Schedule 6 gives the CO the power not to entertain a complaint from a vexatious person. However, in drafting the provisions we inadvertently failed to extend that power to cover complaints heard under the new Part VIIA of the 1992 Act. Paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 adds a new Chapter VIIA of the 1992 Act to establish an entitlement for trade union members to complain to the CO about certain alleged breaches of the rules of their trade unions. It was always intended that breaches of union rules should fall under the vexatious litigant provisions, and Amendment No. 131 remedies this drafting error.
I turn to Amendment No. 132, which is the final Government amendment to Schedule 6. Schedule 6 establishes an entitlement for trade union members to complain to the certification officer about certain alleged breaches of the rules of their unions, including rules relating to the balloting of members on any issue other than industrial action. Under the current law, trade union members must generally apply to the court about such breaches. However, in drafting the schedule we overlooked the point that the certification officer already has jurisdiction to hear cases of breaches of rules in respect of political fund ballots. Section 80 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations

1123
(Consolidation) Act 1992 gives the certification officer power to hear complaints about breaches of a union's rules relating to a political fund ballot.
What is more, the procedural requirements under Section 80 of the 1992 Act are different from those which are to apply under the new provisions. It would therefore be undesirable if the same complaint could be heard under two separate jurisdictions and under two different procedures. This minor amendment, therefore, ensures that complaints about breaches of a union's political fund ballot rules cart be made to the certification officer only under Section 80 of the 1992 Act and not under the new provisions outlined in Schedule 6. The Section 80 procedures have worked well in practice and have not placed excessive administrative burdens on the certification officer. I urge the House to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 92, line 20, at end insert—
("Annual report by Certification Officer
. In section 258(1) (Certification Officer: annual report) for "calendar year" there shall be substituted "financial year".")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Partnerships at work]:
[Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Highbury Lord Simon of Highbury moved Amendment No. 138:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS: EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN
(" .—(1) In section 285(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (employment outside Great Britain) for "Chapter 11 (procedure for handing redundancies)" there shall be substituted "sections 193 and:94 (duty to notify Secretary of State of certain redundancies)".
(2) After section 287(3) of that Act (offshore employment) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) An Order in Council under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
(3) Section 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (employment outside Great Britain) shall cease to have effect; and in section 5(1) for "sections 196 and" there shall be substituted "section".
(4) After section 199(6) of that Act (mariners) there shall be inserted—
"(7) The provisions mentioned in subsection (8) do not apply to employment on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom if—

(a) the ship is registered at a port outside Great Britain,

(b) under his contract of employment the person employed works wholly outside Great Britain, or

(c) the person employed is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.

(8) The provisions are—

(a) sections 8 to 10,

(b) Parts II, III and V,

(c) Part VI, apart from sections 58 to 60,

(d) Parts VII and VIII,

(e) sections 92 and 93, and

(f) Part X.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Employment Agencies]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 92, line 35, at beginning insert ("subject to subsections (1B) to (1E) below,")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 139 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 140. I crave the indulgence of the House in this matter. My notes on these amendments are somewhat lengthy, but I feel so strongly about this matter that I cannot omit any part of them. I shall speak rather quickly so that I do not take up too much of your Lordships' time.
Amendment No. 139 is just a paving amendment to make way for Amendment No. 140 which is the substantive provision. Under the Employment Agencies Act, which has operated perfectly satisfactorily since 1973, the Secretary of State has power to make general regulations. Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 7 introduces a new regulation which gives the Secretary of State power to restrict or regulate,
"the charging of fees by persons carrying on such [employment) agencies and businesses".
It is no exaggeration to say that on an ordinary interpretation of those words that draconian power would enable the Secretary of State to put employment agencies out of business by making it totally uneconomic for them to trade either by stipulating unreasonably low fees or even prohibiting the charging of any fees at all in certain circumstances. In case it be thought that this is too fanciful an interpretation. I read a shortened extract from paragraph 266 of the Explanatory Notes:
"Examples of matters on which regulations may be made include … restricting the ability of … employment agencies to impose terms on employers which seek to prevent or discourage … them dealing … with workers supplied to them.
Where businesses seek to impose charges in any of these circumstances regulations might limit the size of those charges … or prohibit them altogether".
That is the whole point. The object of the 15 words in this sub-paragraph is hidden among the 15 lines of the Explanatory Notes.
At a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Simon, last Monday, for which I thank him, he assured me that the Government's objective was not to ban charging for temp to permanent engagements but merely to regulate the fees. But that is not what the clause says, and that is

1125
not what the Explanatory Notes say it says. At the very least, it seems to me that this may be New Labour taking the first step on the road to price controls.
The Government want to ban employment agencies from conducting simple, straightforward, everyday transactions with employers that have been carried on with their willing clients for years, even decades. That simple transaction goes like this. An agency sends an employer a temporary worker in return for a fee which includes the worker's wages, tax and national insurance that the agency pays, as well as the agency's charge or commission. The most common kind of temp is a secretary or clerical worker. The employer decides that she entirely fits into his business and he invites her to take a permanent job with him, which she accepts.
The agency has a clause in its contract with the employer that in this very common situation the employer will pay the agency the commission that it usually charges for the finding of permanent employees. One may ask: what is wrong with that? I confess that I do not know. There may be all kinds of reasons put forward. One is that somehow it would put the employee at a disadvantage because the employer for whom she had been temping might be inhibited from offering her a job because he would be liable to pay a commission. I believe that that is absolute nonsense. The very fact that this is a regular, indeed daily, type of transaction proves that it does not inhibit workers from finding permanent jobs that way.
Employers who look for permanent workers have to get them from somewhere. If they do not pay a commission to an agency for the promotion of a temp to a permanent employee they will pay it to an agency for finding a total stranger; or else the employer will have to spend time and trouble, and quite a lot of money, advertising and interviewing prospects on their own, including any number of unsuitable people whom the agency would have weeded out in advance. That is one of the services that an agency provides to its clients.
Together with many other employers, I have found excellent permanent employees from among temps who have worked for me, and I have been more than pleased to pay the commission. In effect, temp to permanent arrangements are often trial engagements on both sides. I always asked my temps why they did not take a permanent job rather than face the uncertainty of blank periods and constant changes of employers while temping. The fact is that temps work in that capacity for a variety of reasons. Some like the variety of work that temping gives them; most do not want a permanent job but to work as and when it suits them; others want the flexible hours that such work provides or to use temping as a means of finding a permanent job by trying out potential employers themselves. Far from putting a temporary employee at a disadvantage, it gives them the opportunity to find an employer and a job that suits them. Perhaps it is the workers who do not find jobs via the temporary worker route who are adversely affected.
The other untenable reason proffered by the Government for seeking these powers is that a poor ignorant employer may not realise that by hiring a temp and then converting him or her into a permanent
1126
employee will cost him a fee. I would have thought that even someone newly arrived from the planet Zorg would realise that you do not get something for nothing, or that you can in effect poach somebody else's employee with impunity and without paying a fee—apart from the fact that this potential liability is invariably spelled out in the agreement with the agency. Failure to read an agreement that one signs is no excuse, but in order to ensure that there is no possible misunderstanding most agencies specifically refer to the condition in a covering letter.
At Committee stage I proposed a very simple amendment that called on the Government not to make any order which interfered with the commercial arrangements between what might be described as consenting adults—the agency and its client—so long as they did not interfere with an employee's rights. The Government rejected it out of hand.
In order to meet the Government's specious and totally flawed argument against my very simple amendment, I now propose a much more elaborate one which takes into account what the Minister told me then. It requires the contract with the employer and the contract with the worker to state clearly that a fee will be charged to the employer, not to the worker, if the worker takes permanent employment with the business for which he or she has worked on a temporary basis. The clarity is achieved by the words being spelt out in prominent characters in the two contracts, being surrounded by a printed box and being initialled by the employer and the worker.
To anticipate a possible objection from the Government, I have also made it quite clear that an employee may not suffer detriment by refusing to acknowledge the potential arrangement, which will not be of any effect in any case if he or she does not convert a temporary job into a permanent one. There is no cause for the provision tucked away in Schedule 7. It is not merely an exercise in nannyism, to protect employees from possible exploitation or to protect unwary employers from a hidden, unexpected liability. The Unfair Terms and Conditions Act would do that. It is not in response to any public outcry about an injustice to either employers or employees. In fact, the Government have at no stage in this legislation, particularly before your Lordships, produced the slightest evidence of any abuse or of any real public demand for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, told the Committee:
"Some in the industry admit that they use "temp to perm" fees to stall that process".
With the greatest respect, that is a totally misleading spin on whatever the Government say they have been told.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit, speaking on the same amendment, told the Committee on the basis of his former connection with an employment agency that,
"temporary staff are an asset of the agency".—[Official Report, 16/6/99; cols. 397–98]
What the agencies are doing when they charge a commission when one of their employees whose services they hire out as a temp is taken into permanent

1127
employment by one of their clients is to prevent blatant poaching by someone who has had that asset—the temp—on trust. It is also to ensure that when employers decide to keep a temp permanently they are compensated for the loss of revenue generated by the temp and the cost of finding a replacement.
Among those who have lobbied me on this subject is the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services, a trade association representing over 50 per cent of the industry, with 5,500 offices in membership throughout the country. The industry has an annual turnover of a staggering £16 billion. Each week it finds temporary work for about 1 million people. Each year it finds permanent jobs for 450,000 people. Some 16 per cent of the industry's revenue comes from temporary to permanent fees. FRES estimates that about 170,000 of those for whom the agencies find permanent jobs—that is, just over a third—do so via the temp-to-permanent route. That belies the totally unsupported and specious suggestion that it somehow inhibits people from finding jobs or puts temps at some disadvantage. Many employers recruit staff exclusively by this means. Many disadvantaged people find that the temp-to-permanent route offers them the opportunity of a permanent job following rejection by employers on the grounds of age or recent illness and—reprehensibly and illegally—on the grounds of some disability. Recruitment agencies play an important part, not just in placing people in jobs, but in helping difficult candidates to find jobs.
The industry says it is difficult for it to understand the Government's attitude to it, especially on this issue, where everybody—employers and employees alike—is content with the system. I suspect what the problem may be. Although the agencies have not said this, I wonder whether in some of the deep recesses of old Labour—not on the Front Bench, I hasten to add, but perhaps behind—people are waiting to pounce and settle old scores. In 1983 the Labour Party's extreme Left-wing election manifesto—the noble Lord will not be surprised if I repeat it again—said:
"We will take urgent steps to abolish private employment agencies".
"Urgent steps"! What was the reason for having that in the manifesto? Again I quote. It was to:
"ensure that the Manpower Services Commission develops a national job centre network".
That was nationalisation through the back-door, and in that case nationalisation without compensation. I know that the Minister will tell me that that is a great exaggeration, but that is exactly what I think it is. In Committee when I quoted the same words, I invited the noble Lord to assure us that New Labour had forsworn that ambition. Answer came there none then. Maybe tonight some answer will come.
I said in Committee that I was prepared to assume that the Government had simply not understood the destructive nature of these proposals. I again say that if they claim they do not know, then it is not for want of being warned by the: industry and my honourable friends in the other place, even in advance of the draft regulations. The fact is that their proposals will put the
1128
agencies out of business, or at least make their operations unviable, simply because they cannot recruit temporary workers only to lose them through the poaching that the Bill would encourage. The proposals will make it harder for thousands of people, many of them single mothers, to obtain temporary work. 'They will make it harder, if not impossible, for employers and temporary workers alike to find suitable staff and positions by a straightforward system under which employees are in effect working on a trial basis and at the same time can discover, while still being paid, whether they like the work, the employer and, equally important, their potential colleagues.
I repeat, this provision provides for no known need and removes no injustice or abuse. It is in this Bill for no good reason. If it is eventually passed, it will, I believe, also be found to infringe the article in the Treaty of Rome which prohibits any restriction on the free movement of labour, and it is entirely possible that the Government will find themselves dragged off, kicking and screaming, to the European Commission to be told once again that their conduct is illegal.
Noble Lords opposite, including the Ministers, know that I do everything that I can to save them from this fate. I therefore urge the Government to accept the modification to their proposed powers that this modest amendment calls for. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I have had the great pleasure of taking part in most stages of the Bill—nearly all the Committee stage and all the Report stage from this Front Bench. Today, I believe, I have uttered only two sentences, so I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I now break my duck and go to three or four.
I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, not because I am a director of a recruitment agency—we do not deal 'with any temporary staff at all; we are concerned purely with what is euphemistically called "executive search"—but because as an employer I have used temporary staff from time to time and some of those staff have become permanent members of our staff. On one occasion without my knowledge—I found out about it afterwards—somebody who had been working for us for some nine months took a permanent position. It was arranged by the person who employed him that he simply left for a week, left the agency and came to us a week later. We thereby rather neatly avoided paying a commission. I am not proud of that, but it is what happened.
I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but I think she has attacked this matter from the wrong angle. I regard the key issue as being one of time. Clearly, if a temporary employee comes to work for a week or a month and then becomes permanent much of what the noble Baroness says is right. But where a temporary employee has worked for six or nine months I do not see why there should be the penalty of an extra commission. If the noble Baroness

1129
could have framed her amendment on the grounds of time it would have had much more chance of success than the way she has chosen.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I cannot add much to the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lady Miller, but when a government bring forward regulations the onus is on them to prove that the regulations are necessary and that they fully understand their implications. From all that has been said, I for one am not convinced that the regulations in this sense are necessary under this Bill.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I wish it were as simple as to say that I would meet length with strength.
We had an opportunity in Committee to discuss a broader amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, which sought to constrain generally the powers of the Secretary of State to regulate the conduct of employment agencies and business. Amendments Nos. 139 and 140, which she has put down now, cover the same ground, but they speak in particular to the issue of charging fees known as the "temp to perm" in our language.
I do not propose to go over all the ground again and I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to hear that. Suffice it to say that the draft regulations published by the Department of Trade and Industry in May—to be made under the power which the amendments would qualify—do not seek to cap or limit the size of the fees at all. We are seeking only to ensure that bureaux do not use the fees as a means of deterring employers from taking temporary workers into permanent employment in circumstances where they are not themselves prepared to commit to finding work for the employees.
I would not want the House to take at face value, for example, the rather misleading paid advertising from the group mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which put the case for the agencies, so they thought. It appeared in the form of a news report in Monday's Evening Standard which wrongly claimed that we are seeking to abolish temp-to-perm fees. I make it clear again, for the record, that the Government's proposals will not abolish the fees. The proposals stem from the proposition that it is not right for a price to be put on a temporary worker's head that restricts the range of potential employers he can work for without him getting anything in return. The draft proposals in the consultation document do not cap or limit the size of fees. Bureaux will remain entirely free to protect their legitimate interests by charging temp-to-perm fees, provided that they have committed to provide work for the worker.
We have made it clear that we are open to alternative suggestions to the ones we have put forward in the draft regulations on which we are consulting, provided they meet concerns about the abuse of temp-to-perm fees. We will consider any such proposals carefully, but I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will appreciate that to accept her amendments would pre-empt the result of that consideration, and indeed the
1130
consultation exercise itself. Were she totally focused on my statement, she would understand why we are not prepared to accept the amendment until we have considered the consultation.
In addition, we have some doubts about the legal effect of the amendment. First, there could be uncertainty about what would be reasonable for charges. Secondly, regulating charges to employment agencies will not in fact cover charges by bureaux acting as employment businesses. Thirdly, no sanction is provided for breach of the provision that would make it unlawful for agencies to refuse to provide services to workers who do not agree with the fees being charged. Those are three technical points. Therefore, we should await the consultation and we should note that the Government are prepared to make the regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We also do not want to have the provisions on the face of the Bill because they affect a dynamic market place.
Far from spending more time on issues such as whether we are from the planet Zorg, I wish to stay firmly on the ground. Schedule 7, line 35, which is the offensive line in the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, does not state that we wish to cap or affect the fees in limitation terms. If we had, we would have drafted it to read:
"restricting or regulating the level or amount of fees".
The Bill actually says:
"restricting or regulating the charging of fees".
That is a different issue to which I have already spoken. We will consult and, in the meantime and given what I have said, I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have to tell the Minister that I did not see the advertisement in the press earlier in the week, so I do not know what it said. I have recently had a briefing from the group. The briefing that I had before, when I felt strongly about the issue, was from Adecco, and the Minister said that it had also briefed him. Given that it is one of the largest employment agencies in the world, certainly in this country, I thought that its view was necessary.
The Minister thought that I was not listening carefully to what he was saying. In fact, I was listening so well that I heard the slight rebuke in his voice. So that he does not think that I do not understand everything that he has said to me, I will read what he has said very carefully in case I missed some wonderful word of wisdom. I heard many words of wisdom from the Minister and I would not want him to think that I did not. I also heard what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said about introducing a time-scale to the amendment.
I reserve the right to return to the subject, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 141:
After Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule—
("NATIONAL SECURITY
1. The following shall be substituted for section 193 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (national security)—
"National security.
193. Part IVA and section 47B of this Act do not apply in relation to employment for the purposes of—

(a) the Security Service,

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters."

2. Section 4(7) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (composition of tribunal: national security) shall cease to have effect.
3. The following shill be substituted for section 10 of that Act (national security, &c.)—
"National security.
10.—(l) If on complaint under—

(a) section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (detriment: trade union membership), or

(b) section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal), it is shown that the action complained of was taken for the purpose of safeguarding national security, the employment tribunal shall dismiss the complaint.

(2) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may make provision about the composition of the tribunal (including provision disapplying or modifying section 4) for the purposes of proceedings in relation to which—

(a) a direction is given under subsection (3), or

(b) an order is made under subsection (4).

(3) A direction may be given under this subsection by a Minister of the Crown if—

(a) it relates to particular Crown employment proceedings, and

(b) the Minister considers it expedient in the interests of national security.

(4) An order may be made under this subsection by the President or a Regional Chairman in relation to particular proceedings if he considers it expedient in the interests of national security.
(5) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may make provision enabling a Minister of the Crown, if he considers it expedient in the interests of national security—

(a) to direct a tribunal to sit in private for all or part of particular Crown employment proceedings;

(b) to direct a tribunal to exclude the applicant from all or part of particular Crown employment proceedings;

(c) to direct a tribunal to exclude the applicant's representatives from all or part of particular Crown employment proceedings;

(d) to direct a tribunal to take steps to conceal the identity of a particular witless in particular Crown employment proceedings;

(e) to direct a tribunal to take steps to keep secret all or part of the reasons for its decision in particular Crown employment proceedings.

(6) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may enable a tribunal, if it considers it expedient in the interests of national security, to do anything of a kind which a tribunal can be required to do by direction under subsection (5)(a) to (e).
(7) In relation to cases where a person has been excluded by virtue of subsection (5)(b) or (c) or (6), employment tribunal procedure regulations may make provision—

(a) for the appointment by the Attorney General, or by the Advocate General for Scotland, of a person to represent the interests of the party;

(b) about the publication and registration of reasons for the tribunal's decision.

(8) Proceedings are Crown employment proceedings for the purposes of this section if the employment to which the complaint relates—

(a) is Crown employment, or

(b) is connected with the performance of functions on behalf of the Crown.

(9) The reference in subsection (4) to the President or a Regional Chairman is to a person appointed in accordance with regulations under section 1(1) as—

(a) a Regional Chairman,

(b) President of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales), or

(c) President of the Employment Tribunals (Scotland).

Confidential information.
10A.—(1) Employment tribunal procedure regulations may enable an employment tribunal to sit in private for the purpose of hearing evidence from any person which in the opinion of the tribunal is likely to consist of—

(a) information which he could not disclose without contravening a prohibition imposed by or by virtue of any enactment,

(b) information which has been communicated to him in confidence or which he has otherwise obtained in consequence of the confidence reposed in him by another person, or

(c) information the disclosure of which would, for reasons other than its effect on negotiations with respect to any of the matters mentioned in section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, cause substantial injury to any undertaking of his or in which he works.

(2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to any undertaking of a person or in which he works shall be construed—

(a) in relation to a person in Crown employment, as a reference to the national interest,

(b) in relation to a person who is a relevant member of the House of Lords staff, as a reference to the national interest or (if the case so requires) the interests of the House of Lords, and

1133

(c) in relation to a person who is a relevant member of the House of Commons staff, as a reference to the national interest or (if the case so requires) the interests of the House of Commons.

Restriction of publicity in cases involving national security.
10B.—(1) This section applies where a tribunal has been directed under section 10(5) or has determined under section 10(6)—

(a) to take steps to conceal the identity of a particular witness, or

(b) to take steps to keep secret all or part of the reasons for its decision.

(2) It is an offence to publish—

(a) anything likely to lead to the identification of the witness, or

(b) the reasons for the tribunal's decision or the part of its reasons which it is directed or has determined to keep secret.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(4) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section it is a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication in question was of, or included, the matter in question.
(5) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(6) A reference in this section to publication includes a reference to inclusion in a programme included in a programme service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990."
4. Section 28(5) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (composition of Appeal Tribunal: national security) shall cease to have effect.
5.—(1) Section 30 of that Act (Appeal Tribunal Procedure rules) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(d) for "section 10" substitute "section 10A".
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) Appeal Tribunal procedure rules may make provision of a kind which may be made by employment tribunal procedure regulations under section 10(2), (5), (6) and (7).
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)—

(a) the reference in section 10(2) to section 4 shall be treated as a reference to section 28, and

(b) the reference in section 10(4) to the President or a Regional Chairman shall be treated as a reference to a judge of the Appeal Tribunal.

(2C) Section 10B shall have effect in relation to a direction to or determination of the Appeal Tribunal as it has effect in relation to a direction to or determination of an employment tribunal."
6. After section 69(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (evidence: Minister's certificate as to national security, & there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Subsection (2)(b) shall not have effect for the purposes of proceedings on a complaint under section 54."
7. Paragraph 4(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (evidence: Minister's certificate as to national security, &c.) shall cease to have effect.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 145 and 148. I put forward this measure which is designed to allow, even in the most sensitive cases, staff of the security and intelligence agencies to present a complaint under employment legislation, including the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in as similar a way as possible to other employees.
Since 1996, there has been no general ban preventing access by staff of those agencies to employment tribunals. However, agency staff and other Crown servants may be excluded from certain rights conferred by employment legislation. The Secretary of State has power, for example, to exclude those in Crown employment on national security grounds from some of the rights given under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and to certify, with conclusive effect, that an act giving rise to a complaint of unfair dismissal was done on grounds of national security, with the effect that such an act is not unlawful. Government policy has been to exercise this power on a case-by-case basis, and only when national security considerations cannot be met by existing safeguards.
These issues have been raised in annual reports by the Intelligence Services Commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart Smith, and the statutory Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government are committed to establishing enhanced procedures for agency staff who feel that they have been unfairly dismissed.
The amendment contained in the new schedule introduces a more liberal regime while safeguarding national security interests. It removes the power of Ministers to remove rights under the Employment Rights Act 1996 from those in Crown employment. However, the rights introduced to the 1996 Act by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, relating to whistleblowing, will continue to be excluded. The power contained in Section 10(5) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 allowing a Minister to issue conclusive certificates certifying that an act was done on grounds of national security will be repealed, as will the similar conclusive certificate powers contained in the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Staff of the security and intelligence agencies and others in Crown employment will be able to present a complaint to an employment tribunal in the normal way. However, Ministers may direct that Crown employment proceedings be heard by a specially constituted employment tribunal where national security issues are concerned, and accordingly the amendment says that tribunal regulations may provide for such tribunals. We have in mind that senior chairmen and lay members will sit in these circumstances. As I said, Ministers will have this power of direction only in relation to Crown employment but the tribunal president, or a regional

1135
chairman will be able to order that a specially constituted tribunal should sit if they consider it expedient on grounds of national security.
The amendment also allows the tribunal regulations to make provision enabling a Minister of the Crown, in Crown employment cases, to direct a tribunal to use special procedures if he considers it expedient on grounds of national security. Tribunals will also be able to use the special procedures of their own motion on national security grounds. Under this provision, Ministers will be able to direct a tribunal to sit in private and to exclude an applicant and his representatives during all or part of particular proceedings, to conceal the identity of witnesses and to take steps to keep secret the reasons for its decision. It will be an offence to publish anything which is likely to identify such a witness or the reasons which are to be kept secret, and new Section 10B of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 sets out the penalty for such an offence. Where the applicant or his representative are excluded from proceedings, the tribunal regulations will be able to provide that the Attorney-General, or the Advocate-General for Scotland, will be able to appoint a special advocate to act in the interests of the applicant. The regulations will also be able to provide that, where an applicant or his representative have been excluded, the tribunal will not be able to publish to the applicant any part of the written reasons which contains evidence given during the period of the exclusion. However, the applicant will be made aware that part of the reasons has been removed.
Similar provisions to those relating to employment tribunals so far as composition and special procedures are concerned will apply to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The new paragraph 10A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 relating to confidential information is simply a re-enactment of what is currently Section 10(2)(b) and (3) of that Act. New Part 11 to Schedule 8 makes a number of repeals consequent upon the provisions I have just described.
This amendment significantly improves the right of access of employees of the intelligence and security agencies to employment tribunals and is a progressive measure in line with the Government's commitment to open government. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I spoke earlier on Amendment No. 120, which removed from the face of the Bill protection for people employed by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. Some of us were unhappy about that but we were comforted by the Minister's statement that further provisions would be tabled later. These amendments will provide for protection in front of industrial tribunals which hitherto has not been available, certainly not for the staff of GCHQ and those in the secret services. In general terms I welcome them. This is a move in the right direction, giving rights to people who hitherto have been denied what ordinary employees elsewhere have had. But the rights are heavily circumscribed by the requirements of national security.
1136
While I welcome this move in the right direction, I am unhappy to be faced at such short notice with these lengthy amendments. I have an uneasy feeling about them. I hope that the Minister can set my unease to rest. Mention is made in the amendment of Crown employment in general. Mention is made of staff of the House of Lords. Mention is made also of staff of the House of Commons. As far as I am aware, under the previous Act such staff were fully entitled to refer to the tribunal. They did not have similar constraints laid on them as I perceive are now being laid down by the provision.
I may be entirely wrong. If I am, I hope that the Minister will put me right. I will then be able to sleep tonight when I go home. I have an uneasy feeling about this extensive amendment. I suspect that it comes in the main from the security services. They have a good record for presenting amendments late. They are invariably long and they are invariably all embracing from their point of view. I am a little uneasy about some of the later references to the way in which corporate bodies can be prosecuted. There is mention of the Broadcasting Act 1990. There is a whole range of issues here. It seems to smack to some extent of closing up on openness rather than freedom of information, which many of us are after.
I may be entirely wrong. It is a long amendment and I do not fully understand it. I give the amendment a general welcome but I hope that my noble friend can set my mind at rest that there is not an extension to other employees. But if I am right, I hope that there will be some reflection on these extensive amendments before we reach the next stage.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the House on this point. The new paragraph 10A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 relating to confidential information is simply a re-enactment of what is currently Section 10(2)(b) and (3) of that Act. That is the part which refers to the situation of the staff of the House of Commons and the staff of the House of Lords. We have simply repeated that. I would not want to hazard a guess as to why it was put in there in the first place. But it is there, and we are simply repeating it. I can assure my noble friend that the amendment represents a vast opening up of the rights of these staff to have their cases properly considered.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 142:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS
(" .—(1) This section applies where regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (general implementation of Treaties) make provision for the purpose of implementing, or for a purpose concerning, a Community obligation of the United Kingdom which relates to the treatment of employees on the transfer of an undertaking or business or part of an undertaking or business.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make the same or similar provision in relation to the treatment of employees in circumstances other than those to which the Community obligation applies (including circumstances in which there is no transfer, or no transfer to which the Community obligation applies).
(3) Regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that at the Committee stage the Government sought to introduce a new clause relating to the transfer of undertakings, but ultimately declined to move the amendment as the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had indicated that it wished to have an opportunity for prior consideration. We undertook to return to the matter on Report, and are now doing so. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to offer my sincere thanks to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee for its considered and helpful comments on this matter. I am grateful, too, for the alacrity with which it produced its report. We have of course been very pleased to take on board the points it raised and trust that the revised version of the amendment now before the House will meet with its full approval. I hope it will be helpful to your Lordships if I explain the background to this.
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—commonly known as the TUPE regulations—implement the EC Acquired Rights Directive and safeguard employees' rights when the business in which they work changes hands between employers. The Government are committed to revising the regulations, which in their current form are operating less than effectively, leading to much unnecessary dispute and litigation. This will build on our success during the UK presidency last year in securing other member states' agreement to a revision of the directive itself.
Officials in my department are currently working up detailed proposals, in liaison with colleagues elsewhere in Whitehall and in informal discussions with the main employer and employee representative bodies and other outside interests, in line with social partnership principles. Our aim is to seek views on these proposals by way of a formal public consultation document to be published later in the year, accompanied by draft regulations, and to have the new requirements in place by next spring.
We have found a remarkable degree of consensus among the social partners and other interested parties as regards the main issues of substance to be addressed in the revision of the regulations. I pay tribute to the CBI, the TUC and other bodies—including the TUPE Forum, which represents all parties involved in public sector contracting—for the constructive approach they have taken on these issues and for the assistance they have given us in developing our proposals.
As this work has progressed, however, it has become clear to us that some of the changes we may decide to make could not be achieved under the existing powers in Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. In particular, extending the scope so as to give rights to individuals in situations where they would not have them under the directive could not be done under those
1138
existing powers. This limits the options available for tackling two major areas of uncertainty in the regulations: their application to contracting-out operations and their application to transfers involving public sector bodies. If we had to rely on the existing powers alone, this could prevent us from putting forward proposals to meet the widespread expectation, shared by employer and employee bodies alike, that the new regulations will apply comprehensively where changes occur in service contracting. Specifically, it could prevent our ensuring that the recontracting or bringing back in-house of a contracted-out service was covered in cases where the conditions in the directive were not met but where there was a wish to provide consistent treatment.
The existing powers would also be insufficient to allow us to apply the regulations to transfers of purely administrative functions between public administrative bodies, leaving it necessary for alternative administrative or legislative arrangements to be made in each case, as, indeed, has to be done at present. The amendment seeks to remove these technical obstacles so that we can be certain that we have sufficient powers to achieve what we are likely to be asked to achieve when we go out to formal public consultation.
I hope that I have succeeded in making clear what are some undoubtedly complex legal points. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 143:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
MINIMUM WAGE: INFORMATION
(".—(1) Information obtained by a revenue official in the course of carrying out a function of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may be—

(a) supplied by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to the Secretary of State for any purpose relating to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998;

(b) supplied by the Secretary of State with the authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to any person acting under section 13(1)(6) of that Act;

(c) supplied by the Secretary of State with the authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to an officer acting for the purposes of any of the agricultural wages legislation.

(2) In this section—

"revenue official" means an officer of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue appointed under section 4 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 (appointment of collectors, officers and other persons), and

"the agricultural wages legislation" has the same meaning as in section 16 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (agricultural wages officers).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 143, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 149 and 150. Amendment No. 143 will make enforcement of the minimum wage more effective while reducing the bureaucracy for business. As most noble Lords will know, the Inland Revenue has overall responsibility for enforcement of the national minimum wage. At present, if Revenue officers get information

1139
about someone paying below the national minimum wage while they are carrying out their tax and national insurance duties they cannot pass the information to their national minimum wage colleagues. It is not permitted, even if it might help them to identify employers paying below the national minimum wage.
This Bill offers us the opportunity to tidy up the matter in a way which allows the use of information so that Revenue officers can pass information obtained in respect of tax and national insurance contributions to their national minimum wage colleagues and others appointed under the National Minimum Wage Act where this would help them in their national minimum wage enforcement work. Of course, all other existing strict Revenue safeguards on the confidentiality and disclosure of information remain in place.
We are talking about commonsense arrangements to allow one part of a government department to exchange data with other parts of that department, and with other departments for national minimum wage purposes.
The clause simply allows our national minimum wage officers to access the Revenue's tax and national insurance contributions information to assist them in their national minimum wage enforcement work. It does not set a precedent for ever-widening exchange across government; it is limited and specific. It will mean the vast majority of employers are unlikely to be visited by national minimum wage officers. This is because we will only target those employers who are "high risk." This will be done by the use of a sophisticated risk assessment model. Using tax data will ensure those employers paying above national minimum wage are unlikely to receive a visit. The amendment allows for sensible administrative arrangements to be put in place. For example, the amendment will allow national minimum wage officers to be passed information held on Inland Revenue databases for tax and national insurance purposes when planning their targeted inspections of employers. And when the Revenue begin operating working families' tax credit in the autumn, there is clear scope for unearthing national minimum wage abuses through claims by workers for tax credits.
Employers, including the CBI, have always made clear they want the national minimum wage effectively enforced. The measure will ensure that this is achieved. It will also reduce bureaucracy for business. Noble Lords may be aware of the recent report by the Federation of Small Businesses which complained about the proliferation of different government inspectorates. This amendment is in the interests of good government, in the interests of low paid workers, and in the interests of legitimate businesses. I commend it to the House.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister said that these are sensible proposals that are good for the employees, employers, the collection systems and so on. I could not agree with him more. When the National Minimum Wage Bill came before your Lordships in 1998, we proposed of amendment to the effect that the records kept for the purposes of PAYE should be sufficient for the purposes of the Act. We also urged
1140
that if the Inland Revenue and the Benefits Agency were to be amalgamated this April they should be the enforcement body for the purposes of the national minimum wage. That amendment was rejected, and I cannot say that I do not approve of it now that it has been reintroduced in this form a year later.
I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I was going to rub the Ministers' noses in it, and the noble Lord said that he expected no less. However, I will not do so at this late hour. I am sure that the Ministers know exactly how I feel. I am glad that they have seen the light at long last because this is a very important matter.
I believe that slipping this amendment into a totally unconnected Bill gives rise to a further important criticism. An ordinary member of the public—who does not have access to specialised text books that have full annotations and are updated throughout the year—will not know that the copy of the Act that he looks up somewhere or other is incomplete because this provision is not where he would expect it to be. That is no way to produce legislation. Therefore, even if I do not rub the noble Lords' noses in anything, it is right that I record a strong protest about this slipshod method of legislating.
On that happy note, I must mention one important reservation of which the noble Lord is already aware and to which he referred in introducing the amendments. We agree that the amendment is necessary in order to break down the Chinese wall between the Inland Revenue and those responsible for carrying out the enforcement functions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. However, the Inland Revenue could pass information to the Secretary of State who could then pass that information to anyone he appoints to enforce the Act or to anyone involved with agricultural wages legislation. Secrecy about a taxpayer's affairs is normally regarded as sacrosanct by the Inland Revenue.
I know that there are some exceptions, which are understood and accepted. However, we seek the Minister's assurance that this is an exception—I believe that he has said that. I realise that the Minister cannot tie the hands of Parliament in any way—and I do not ask him to do so. However, I would like the Minister to give your Lordships another unequivocal assurance that this clause will not be treated as a precedent. If the Government are minded to seek similar powers for any other purpose, they must do what they have done in this instance and introduce primary legislation.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I welcome this amendment—and I assure the Minister that there is no sting in the tail of my welcome. He will be pleased to hear that.
The credit for this change does not go entirely to the Opposition. Those of us who have a civil service background pointed out the deficiencies of the changes through the TUC. As we near the end of this Session, it is proper to record that the TUC suggested that there could be a more sensible and cost-effective approach It was proposed that hundreds of tax officials should meet employers and examine pay-as-you-earn and national insurance records, yet they were prevented by the

1141
legislation from passing on information to their other colleagues who were considering the national minimum wage. We urged a change in that area, and I think that the TUC should be congratulated—especially in view of the fact that the Opposition have been congratulating themselves so much this evening.
This is the right thing to do and I trust that it will not set a precedent. It will ensure that the national minimum wage is implemented properly and complied with by employers throughout the country.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I reiterate the point that I made earlier: this measure does not set a precedent for ever-widening changes across government. It is limited and specific. The noble Baroness made the point previously that records that are used for one purpose should be available to cover other purposes. We have never objected to that proposal; we think it is a very good idea. We thought only that her previous amendment was not necessary in order to achieve that aim.
On that basis, I am happy to say that the noble Baroness has played a part in this process. I assure her that this is a very specific and limited measure. I think that the whole House agrees that it is a sensible way to reduce bureaucracy.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 144:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
DISMISSAL OF SCHOOL STAFF
(".—(1) In paragraph 27(3)(b) of Schedule 16 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (dismissal of staff: representations and appeal) for "for a period of two years or more (within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996)" there shall be substituted ", within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for a period at least as long as the period for the time being specified in section 108(1) of that Act (unfair dismissal: qualifying period)".
(2) In paragraph 24(4)(b) of Schedule 17 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (dismissal of staff: representations and appeal) for "for a period of two years or more (within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996)" there shall be substituted ", within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for a period at least as long as the period for the time being specified in section 108(1) of that Act (unfair dismissal: qualifying period)".")
The noble Lord said: This technical amendment is needed to ensure that the provisions governing the dismissal of school staff on fixed-term contracts under Schedules 16 and 17 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 take account of recent reductions in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. These provisions are due to commence on 1 September and provide for the proper treatment of staff on fixed-term contracts whose contracts will not be renewed. Under the Acts, school governing bodies will be required to hear representation of appeals before terminating the contracts of staff on fixed-term contracts where they have been employed for two years or more. This two-year period was the qualifying period for unfair dismissal current at the time the Act was passed. But
1142
the qualifying period in the Employment Rights Act was changed by order on 1st June from two years to one year. This amendment reflects that change.
The Government would always encourage the fair treatment of staff whatever their length of service but consider that statutory rights and proceedings in relation to unfair dismissal should be required only after one year's service.
By referring to the qualifying period that may be specified under the Employment Rights Act rather than an actual length of time, the amendment would ensure that the change on 1st June and any change to be made by a future order is accurately reflected in the dismissal provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 145:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
NATIONAL SECURITY
(". Schedule (National security) shall have effect.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 146 to 148:
Page 96, column 3, leave out lines 35 to 38
Page 100, line 14, at end insert—
("8A. EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS: EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1996 c. 18.

Employment Rights Act 1996.

Section 196. In section 199(6), the words "Section 196(6) does not apply to an employee, and". In section 201(3)(g), the word "196,", Section 204(2). In section 209(2)(g), the words "196(1) and". In section 209(5), the words ", 196(2), (3) and (5)".")

Page 101, line 22, at end insert—
("11. NATIONAL SECURITY

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1995 c. 50.

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Paragraph 4(1)(b) of Schedule 3, and the word "or" immediately before it.

1996 c. 17.

Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

Section 4(7). Section 28(5).

1998 c. 23.

Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

Section 11.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Extent]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 149 and 150:
Pare 17, line 22, leave out subsection (2)
Page 17, line 30, at end insert—
("() Apart from section (Minimum wage: information) and subject to subsection (1), the preceding sections of this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1999
9.21 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, wish to draw the attention of the House to the order. The purpose of the draft order before your Lordships is to implement increases in salary for a number of Ministers and certain other office holders in this House.
The increases in question are those recommended by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body in its Report No. 43 in March of this year. The Prime Minister announced the Government's acceptance of these recommendations in a Written Answer in the other place on 31st March, Commons Hansard, WA col. 716.
I should perhaps declare an interest at the outset. As will probably not have escaped your Lordships' notice, one of the salaries to be increased is my own. Hence my enthusiasm for seeking your Lordships' agreement to the order. The procedure is that changes in salary of this kind—by which I mean increases of salary other than the normal annual uprating—are authorised by an Order in Council under the relevant sections of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. The Act requires the text of the order to be approved in draft by each House before being submitted to Her Majesty. It is that approval that I am inviting the House to give today.
The changes affect a number of offices and it would perhaps be helpful if I listed them. They are: Ministers of State; Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State; the Government Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip; the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip. I have every hope that the inclusion of these last two posts will lead to an unusually warm degree of cross-party enthusiasm for the order.
In addition, the SSRB recommended, and the Government accepted, equivalent increases for the Chairman of Committees and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. These salaries do not appear in the order itself, but they will be implemented administratively when the order comes into force. The individual increases are set out in the draft order. In brief, the SSRB recommendation was that the salaries of each of the posts I have mentioned should be increased by £8,500, in addition to the standard annual uprating which other ministerial posts have received. This produces the figures in the order.
These are quite substantial increases. The recommendation reflects the SSRB's finding that, since the 1996 changes to the pay arrangements for Ministers in another place, the salaries of these posts in your Lordships' House has fallen behind to an unreasonable extent.
The proposed one-off increase is, broadly speaking, equivalent to the amount by which the MPs' salary paid to Ministers in the Commons was abated prior to the 1996 changes and so restores that relativity. The arguments, which the Government accept, are set out in detail in Chapter 4 of the SSRB's Report No. 43.
The draft order implements precisely the Senior Salaries Review Body recommendations and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for moving this order. I shall also declare an interest of a similar kind to that declared by the noble Lord.
I can assure the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that I shall be brief. I was hoping that one of my noble friends would respond to this on the basis that they would not have had an interest in the order in the way that I do. I appreciate that whoever moved the order from the Government Front Bench would have an interest. Therefore, it may be more appropriate that either myself or my noble friend Lord Strathclyde should respond to this.
We welcome the increase, and we welcome it on the part of Ministers, who I know from experience work exceedingly hard. They have been left behind by increases to their colleagues in the Commons. Therefore, it is right that some catching up should take place.
I have one query to put to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip which is not directly related to this matter, but I hope I can raise it on this occasion. It is a matter that I hope the Government will consider at some point. As the noble Lord is aware, only two on our Benches are salaried in any way. A number of other colleagues on this Front Bench work extremely hard. I have observed the work of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. I refer to the work that she did last night, the night before and probably the night before that in an extraordinary number of Bills. The same is true of a large number of my noble friends who give of their own, acting as representatives of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
In regard to the Opposition Benches, I believe that at some point—I am glad to see a nod of agreement from the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—a system ought to be instigated to make an appropriate payment—if that is the right word—or some means of helping to assist them in terms of carrying out their functions. We are grateful for the recent increase that I believe has been offered in terms of what is traditionally called Short money, but I have a sneaking suspicion that that

1145
ought to go further and ought somehow to cover the individuals who help rather than just for the operation of the Front Bench.
I appreciate that the Government Chief Whip will not necessarily wish to respond to those points this evening. I shall be perfectly happy if he does not. I make those points now to put them into his mind so that he can think about them for the future.
Having said that, with a degree of self-interest, I support the order.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I have no wish to impede or unreasonably delay the order before the House. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that there is Cross-Bench enthusiasm for the order, but that enthusiasm does not extend to these Benches, to which the order in large part is irrelevant.
I have two brief comments to make on paragraphs 1 and 2 in the order. I do not like and never have liked the linking of ministerial salaries to Civil Service salaries. That always seemed to me to be putting the cart before the horse. That is because of the lack of nerve of Ministers, including Prime Ministers, in governments over a long period and the feebleness of parliamentarians, who have often lacked the bottle to stand up for what is perfectly reasonable and which could be justified were they all prepared to say so. I recognise that this is now an accepted formula. That does not make it better, but I see no point in disputing it further on this occasion.
My second point on paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order is to endorse something said by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in the debate on the Ministerial and other Salaries Bill on 16th October 1997. He said:
"Certainly we on this side of the House, with our recent experience of ministerial office, see no reason why Ministers should not be rewarded for what are after all long hours and sometimes, it seems, more kicks than halfpence".
I endorse that view. I think that Ministers ought to be properly paid, and I recognise fully, for the reasons to which I have referred, among others, that that has not always been the case.
The second remark of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was of a different kind:
"I hope, if I may say so, that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal"
a reference to the noble Lord, Lord Richard—
"will not allow his colleagues to wear hair shirts too publicly in a sort of competitive bidding for who can take the lowest salary increase."
As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said at the time, he was a sybaritic figure in this House and elsewhere and was very unlikely at any time to wear a hair shirt. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, went on:
"I am not entirely convinced that this kind of public wearing of sackcloth and ashes either adds to the dignity of political life, which is an honourable profession, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, or indeed that the public are convinced by it."
1146
I simply endorse what the noble Viscount said. These are matters which are not so much for the noble Lord, the Lord Carter, to bear in mind. I hope, however, that his colleagues at every level in both Houses will seek to justify proper salaries for themselves and others.
Paragraph 3 of the order refers to the salaries of the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip. It is interesting to look back to 1975 when the primary legislation was passed. It related to payment to the then Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House of £3,500 and to the Opposition Chief Whip of £2,500, since when there have been increases of rather over 15-fold. I attribute that mainly to inflation, and certainly I do not wish to deny the recipients the salaries indicated in the order. I do not in any way begrudge them the increase. They have responsible roles and they do the job well.
The primary legislation is now a quarter of a century old. There have been many developments in that time in both Houses. One of those developments has been in the role of the third party. I do not think I have to declare an interest but I should like to be able to declare a potential interest. The potential interest is clearly in recognition of the role of the third party in this House and of other parties which may be represented here, now enshrined by custom and practice and indeed identified in our Companion to the Standing Orders.
I think it is accepted, speaking, as I do, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we have a very important role to play in the House. I believe that the duties we perform and the stress experienced by the leader—and I speak of the office, not of the present incumbent—and by the Chief Whip—and again I speak of the office and not of the present incumbent—in our proper constitutional role is very little different and certainly not much less than that experienced by the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition in this House and the Opposition Chief Whip. This matter should have been addressed many years ago. I am not asking for anything like a substantive reply from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, tonight, but I am putting down a marker.
In doing so I endorse and recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said about other spokesmen from both Front Benches in opposition, though, if I am allowed to say so, listening to our debates over the last few days, I wondered whether, if there were to be salaries for Front Bench spokesmen, they should be graded in such a way that higher salaries were paid for shorter speeches. Apart from spokesmen in opposition, they were all Members of your Lordships' House.
I hope the time will come, perhaps early in the next Session, when this question of allowances to all Members is looked at urgently and, if necessary, by means of an independent inquiry. I hope that in due course the Government, after discussion with all parties through the usual channels, and with the Cross Benches, will indicate how they propose to tackle this very important matter in the new House which will come into being when the present legislation is through.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should rise and say that everything I wanted to say has been

1147
said very well, but that I intend to repeat what I have heard. However, as we all know in Parliament, the opportunity that we have tonight is rot only to debate what is in the order but also what is not in it.
I begin by asking my noble friend the Government Chief Whip to take back to his colleagues what I believe—I speak on behalf of all of my Back-Bench colleagues—is a thoroughly deserved, radical review of the remuneration which they are paid. There has been no dispute about that this evening.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, sitting opposite. When he was part of the then government and we were in Opposition, he will recall that we always fully supported them in the general case that was building up, shall we say, over the past seven or eight years that Ministers in the House of Lords had been left behind in one 'way or another. If this is in fact part of the unfinished business of the past 10 years, I think it is both fitting and proper that we should discuss the matter.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I should like to use this opportunity to give general support for what is in the order and discuss what we ought to do. I should like to remind the House that it was the then Lord Privy Seal, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who told the House in 1996 that the Prime Minister had written to Sir Michael Perry, the Chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body, in the following terms:
"As you know, changes in the structure of civil servants' pay mean that new arrangements need to be found for determining Members' pay for 1997 onwards.
I would be grateful if you and your colleagues on the Senior Salaries Review Body would under your standing terms of reference undertake a comprehensive review with the following remit.
'The Senior Salaries Review Body is asked to undertake a comprehensive review of the level and structure of parliamentary pay and allowances and to make recommendations for the future. The review should cover each of the following items:
(i) the salary of Members of the House of Commons'—
that was done, and very gratefully received by my former colleagues in the House of Commons; that is finished business.
'(ii) the salaries of Ministers and other office-holders'
that was done in the other place and that is part of the finished business—
'(iii) all allowances, comprising the Office Costs Allowance, Motor Mileage Allowance, Additional Cost Allowance and the London Supplement'—
that was done and is also part of the finished business.
'(iv) the severance pay and pensions arrangements for MPs and Ministers'—
that, too, is part of the finished business. However,
'(v) the rates of Peers' expenses allowances and the Secretarial Allowance for Ministers and other paid office-holders in the House of Lords'".—[Official Report, 6/2/96; col. WA 14.]—
has yet to be addressed. Therefore, I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could take that on board and help us understand where we are in that respect.
It is interesting to look at the comparisons here; for example, one could compare the fact that the House of Commons finished sitting at 7.30 p.m. tonight, but we will probably be here until about 10 o'clock. We may well also reflect on the fact that those in the other place
1148
will adjourn for the Summer Recess earlier than this House and will no doubt return at a later date than we do. I do not separate and keep in a compartment the matters that affect the House of Lords. Of course we need to look after ourselves. I say that because people in other parts of the Parliamentary Estate look after themselves. If we do not speak up for ourselves, no one will take any notice.
I want to place on the record the fact that, in a Written Answer not many years ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, told the House that the total salary cost for Members of the House of Commons was £22,934,000. That worked out at an average salary of £35,229. In addition, the total cost of the allowances gave an "average allowance cost" of £66,972. However, the total for the Lords was £6 million—as opposed to a figure of £23 million—and the average remuneration for the Lords was £6,700.
It is certainly not my intention to draw unfavourable comparisons but I believe that the difference in those figures is ludicrous. As has been said, that matter needs to be looked at. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made a clear case for support for parties in opposition. We were delighted to support the previous government when it conceived not the Short money but the Cranborne money. We knew then—as we knew that we would win the next election—that the greatest beneficiary of the Cranborne money would be the then government when they moved into opposition, and so it has proved. We know that that helps the party machine and the part), in general. When the Senior Salaries Review Body reported in 1987 it was aware of the anomalies but nevertheless felt unable to endorse a recommendation made by its management consultants; namely, that parties within the House of Lords should be allowed to nominate a limited number of active Back-Benchers for a higher level of allowance. Therefore the issue is not new. In my view it has not been dealt with seriously. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it has been decided not out of a sense of jealousy or of greed but out of a sense of equity and entitlement that Back-Bench Members—that is, other than Ministers—are entitled to a better crack of the whip.
The first allowances were introduced in 1957 and comprised the magnificent sum of three guineas a day. They have gradually aggregated over the years. The aggregation is not bad but the base from which the allowances started is causing them to be out of kilter. A Member of the House of Lords who wants to do his job well is given about £70 a day. He is a Member of a Parliament which is doing important work. I think that that is scandalous and it certainly should be looked at. I take the point that has been made several times, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers; namely, that we are moving into a new era. I shall not discuss the concept of a full-time or part-time House and whether this is a professional or a non-professional Chamber. An opportunity should be found in the early days of the new Session—say from November onwards—to discuss this matter on an all-party basis. My colleagues have been patient and they understand the priorities involved. However, if we do not speak up

1149
for ourselves no one else will. These increases are thoroughly deserved and well earned, but there are others waiting in the queue.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of all my ministerial colleagues I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their kind words about the work that Ministers in this House do which has been recognised in the increases that we are discussing. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his comments and also for not asking me to respond to them in detail this evening.
I can be extremely brief. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked about a salary for the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. I intend no disrespect to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches when I say that they do not at present form Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. Historically the view has been taken that in both Houses the Leader of the Opposition has a particular function to perform which warrants a separate salary. At some stage Parliament may take the view that the office of leader of the third largest party holds a position in our national life that warrants a salary. However, it would not be proper for me to propose that constitutional innovation this evening.
My noble friend drew attention—rightly in my opinion—to the fact that your Lordships' House provides extremely good value for money. I rather expected that the question of the Back-Bench allowances might arise this evening, although they are strictly outside the scope of the order we are discussing. The Senior Salaries Review Body is due to review the level of parliamentary pay and allowances next year for its report early in 2001. It is open to all Members of your Lordships' House to put forward views and evidence to the review body as part of that review.
Perhaps I may pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Graham. The transitional House which will follow the reform of your Lordships' House will create a situation which did not exist when the SSRB's
1150
timetable was previously agreed. I will be very surprised if noble Lords do not draw this matter to the Government's attention once the transitional House is in place. I cannot say more than that this evening. I am sure your Lordships will draw the appropriate conclusion.
I repeat my thanks to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he would deal with one point. He has mentioned the SSRB. From what he said, I presume that it will be well into next year before it makes any recommendations, without any guarantee of implementation. The order we are considering tonight—which has my support—concerns an increase in salary. Can my noble friend say what the difference in dates will be? If the recommendations are approved tonight—I think the order will be approved—what will be the difference in dates between when that is implemented and the likelihood of Back Benchers receiving what might or might not be an increase?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid my noble friend will find the potential gap longer than he would like. If the order is approved this evening, the implementation will be back-dated to 1st April 1999. We are told that it will appear in the July pay cheque.
Under the previous arrangements, at the moment the SSRB is due to review the level of allowances in the year 2000 for a report early in 2001. So that would be the gap, if you like. As it stands at the moment, ministerial salaries will be back-dated to 1st April of this year and the SSRB report on allowances, which are outside this order, will not be available until early 2001.
Perhaps I should repeat the point I made earlier. The transitional House will create a new situation. I shall be surprised if a number of your Lordships do not attempt forcibly to draw this matter to the attention of the Government once the transitional House is in place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  Centenarians and the Millennium
  Centenarians and the Millennium
  Data Protection and Government Departments
  Data Protection and Government Departments
  Mr. Marwan Al Banna
  Mr. Marwan Al Banna
  Mr. Shlomo Argov: Newspaper Allegations
  Mr. Shlomo Argov: Newspaper Allegations
  Offenders Serving More Than Two and a Half Years
  Offenders Serving More Than Two and a Half Years
  Demonstration, London, 29 June
  Demonstration, London, 29 June
  Privy Council Judicial Committee: Costs and Fees
  Privy Council Judicial Committee: Costs and Fees
  Turkey: Ilisu Dam Project
  Turkey: Ilisu Dam Project
  Higher Education Pay and Conditions
  Higher Education Pay and Conditions
  Multi-modal Transport Studies
  Multi-modal Transport Studies
  Vacant Council Housing
  Vacant Council Housing
  Humber Bridge Traffic Flows
  Humber Bridge Traffic Flows
  Humber Bridge: Tolls
  Humber Bridge: Tolls
  Single Currency: Economic Tests
  Single Currency: Economic Tests
  Finance Bill and Human Rights Convention
  Finance Bill and Human Rights Convention
  Hyde Park Concerts
  Hyde Park Concerts
  Pembroke Lodge, Richmond Park
  Pembroke Lodge, Richmond Park