Sitting of 12 July 1999

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

    Tagging
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many prisoners have been released as part of the Government's tagging initiative; and what proportion has reoffended. [89210]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): According to the latest figures, as of 7 July 7,226 prisoners had been placed on home detention curfew since the scheme commenced. Of this total, fewer than 1 per cent had been charged with fresh offences committed while on curfew.
    Mr. Swayne: Can releasing a prisoner who has served only six weeks of a custodial sentence of six months be described as being "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"?
    Mr. Howarth: According to important early indications, the home detention curfew is a success. More
    2
    than 95 per cent. of those who have been discharged have completed their curfews successfully, or are still complying with them. The question that the hon. Gentleman needs to ask himself is this: can he suggest an alternative scheme that would produce comparable results? I suspect not—in which case, this scheme is a success. It is a qualified success at this stage, and we are still keeping an eye on it; but it is better for people to be released into the community under supervision, with some chance of modifying their offending behaviour, than for them simply to be let out with no such prospect.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: As my hon. Friend says, the scheme has been a great success. One of its unexpected advantages is that there is now a surplus of places in open prisons. Would it not be a good idea to convert one of those prisons into a hostel for women prisoners, who normally pose a very low risk, so that they could lead more or less normal lives and have their young children with them? That would be a humane act.
    Perhaps we could also follow the example of other countries, and allow a period of about a fortnight before young women with children need enter prison. That arrangement has been very successful elsewhere.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend's suggestion is, in fact, being considered. If there is any surplus capacity in the prison estate, some of it might well be suitable for women offenders.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Minister will be aware of the story that appeared over the weeekend—[Interruption.] It concerned a massive security leak—which is not a subject for frivolity—relating to prisoner records at Belmarsh. Among those whose details were leaked were prisoners who had been released early, including Patrick Magee.

    3
    Is it the case that, when Magee's release was authorised, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary were fully aware of the contents of the records, and of the threats that Magee was alleged to have made, which appear in those computer records?
    Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has ordered an inquiry into the leaking of the documents. As far as we know, however, it was not Patrick Magee who was named in them.
    Miss Widdecombe: This question, then, remains. There was a terrorist, even allowing for the fact that the report was inaccurate about who it was, and his threats about what he would do on his release are fully detailed in the records. Were those threats known and taken into account when the decision to release that person was made?
    Mr. Howarth: For reasons that the right hon. Lady, as a former prisons Minister, will understand, it would be inappropriate for me to answer that question from the Dispatch Box today. We will, however, ensure that the full facts are given to her in the form of a letter from my right hon. Friend in due course.

    Passports
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What estimate he has made of the compensation to be paid by his Department to British holidaymakers who are unable to travel abroad in 1999–2000 owing to the non-return of their passport by the Passport Agency. [89211]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Compensation payments average about £260. Between April and July, there have been 132 cases in which compensation claims have been received relating to missed travel dates.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is the Minister in any way changing his attitude? He will recall that, on the morning of 29 June, he told the British public over the airwaves that the crisis was all their fault: it was all their fault for panicking. By the afternoon of that day, the Home Secretary was saying at the Dispatch Box that he would pay compensation—and rightly so—to all whose holidays had been wrecked, and to business men who could not meet due travel dates.
    Does the Minister think that the figure he has given represents genuinely fair compensation? Is £260 sufficient compensation for a wrecked holiday, or for the unquantifiable business lost by business men who could not meet their travel dates?
    Mr. O'Brien: We always consider compensation claims in full.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to what I was alleged to have said. He completely traduced what I said. I said no such thing; I did not blame everyone for what happened in the Passport Agency, and we have not sought to duck that responsibility.
    4
    Let me try to set the compensation issue in context. The agency has made compensation payments for many years. In the last financial year, it made 70 compensation payments. In 1997–98, it made 50 and, in 1996–97, it dealt with 88 compensation claims. It normally identifies the cost within a budget of 2p on the cost of a passport worth £21, which, in total, raises about £100,000. In terms of the claims that we have met so far, we are not even nearing that figure; therefore, the compensation claims that we will meet will be dealt with properly. They will be considered according to the normal arrangements, as they have been for many years. We will seek to ensure that, so far as we can, we continue to meet 99.99 per cent. of travel dates that people ask to us meet.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Could not the recent situation have been eased and future time wasting and bureaucracy avoided if we abandoned our rather idiosyncratic adherence to the requirement for passports for travel between this country and fellow European Union member states?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend will know that protecting our border controls was safeguarded as a fundamental principle by the Prime Minister at Amsterdam. We intend to ensure that we maintain border controls.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister must be aware that the public would be very angry if they found that they had to pay the full costs of this year's chaos at the Passport Agency without the contractors paying serious penalties. Therefore, does he agree that it is in the public interest for there to be full disclosure of any penalties that are paid by Siemens Business Systems in respect of its part in the Passport Agency problems? If such agreements are covered by commercial confidentiality, will he approach Siemens to ask it to forgo that confidentiality for the wider public interest?
    Mr. O'Brien: The summary business case is already a public document and we are placing it in the Library of the House. Any compensation payments will be dealt with in the normal way.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why is it that there are computers that are run by Government—when the Tories were in and now under the present Government at the Passport Agency—that seemingly do not work, yet, throughout the ages, there has always been one computer that works immaculately. We should use it every time for these purposes: the one that is used by Inland Revenue. When money is drawn in, the computer works. When money is paid out, for example, by the Benefits Agency and Passport Agency, it does not work. Why does my hon. Friend not take my advice and say stuff it to Siemens?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are having frank and full discussions with Siemens.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: What are the current turnaround times for passports and when will the backlog be cleared?
    Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement on that point in answer to

    5
    Question 6 from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but may I reassure the right hon. Lady? The way in which the computer system and staff are now operating continues to ensure that 99.99 per cent. of holiday dates are met. As for those people who have applied for passports but have not received them yet, we are attempting to do all that we can to ensure that they do receive them, and to meet all the requirements that people are putting on the Passport Agency. May I join her in paying tribute—as she did in last week's debate—to the hard work of the ordinary members of staff at the Passport Agency, who, in difficult circumstances, have done the best that they could?

    AIDS
    Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will make a statement on the prevalence of AIDS among prisoners. [89212]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): In 1997–98, a voluntary, anonymous survey of HIV, hepatitis and risk behaviour was conducted by the Public Health Laboratory Service Board at eight prisons. The survey found the prevalence of HIV to be 0.34 per cent. of the prison population overall.
    Dr. Gibson: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is estimated that 7 per cent. of prisoners inject drugs and that 4 per cent. Have anal sex. Does that not necessitate some robust scientific study to get the true prevalence of HIV in prisons? Furthermore, given last week's High Court ruling, which confirmed the right of homosexuals to have condoms, should he not review that procedure and ensure that it does not necessitate a prisoner saying that he or she is a confirmed homosexual?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend should be aware that the High Court found, not as he described, but in favour of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Prison doctors already have authority to prescribe condoms to prisoners if, in their clinical judgment, there is a known risk of HIV infection. Doctors view the issuing of condoms in prison from the perspective of protecting public health by preventing the spread of HIV and other infections among prisoners—to whom the Prison Service, of course, has a legal duty of care—and to the wider community when prisoners are released.

    Voting
    Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will undertake a review of the possible use of weekend voting for elections. [89213]
    Mr. Andy King: If he will put forward proposals for voting at weekends at future elections. [89216]
    Mr. David Crausby: If he will bring forward proposals for a substantial extension of postal voting for future elections. [89228]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The working party on electoral procedures, chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for
    6
    the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has been carefully considering all those matters. I shall be publishing the working party's final recommendations on modernisation of electoral procedures after its meeting tomorrow. Copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.
    The Government are committed to improving our electoral procedures, as I am sure will be welcomed by all parties in the House. The working party will, among other things, be making recommendations for piloting new arrangements for voting, including changes in polling hours and polling days—to allow, for example, voting over more than one day, including over a weekend—all-postal ballots for certain elections, and electronic voting.
    Mr. Plaskitt: I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, as that part of our political process is desperately in need of modernisation. Voting needs to be made more accessible, especially for families—many of whom, currently, are inconvenienced by Thursday voting because of school closures. Is my right hon. Friend considering committing himself to holding the next European Parliament elections on a weekend, as other member states do?
    Mr. Straw: We shall certainly consult the other political parties on moving the polling date for the next European parliamentary elections, which will be held in 2004. There is also a case, which we shall consider very carefully, for ensuring that those elections coincide with local elections.
    I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the way in which current voting arrangements might inconvenience families. There is nothing magical about using Thursdays as a polling day—until 1974, Saturdays were used in certain urban districts. I should also say—as it has been a problem in some polling areas of the west midlands—that I believe that there is no excuse for returning officers seeking to prevent parents from entering polling stations with young children, which would mean leaving those young children outside polling stations.
    Mr. King: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt). I am also sure that the whole House appreciates the very good work that is being done to reform a clearly antiquated system.
    Mr. Eric Forth: No.
    Mr. King: Certain dinosaurs might not want anything to be changed. In the European elections, there was an access problem in the west midlands, with mothers with young children in prams—who could not be left outside—being turned away from polling stations. Ed Doolan highlighted that serious problem on Birmingham radio. We must ensure that polling stations are open to all, and I ask my right hon. Friend to commission a study into how we can ensure that returning officers and polling station staff are fully briefed on their responsibilities.
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The issue was raised with the Under-Secretary by my hon. Friend

    7
    the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). He has examined the matter, and will tell Birmingham returning officers that there is no justification whatever for asking parents to leave their younger children outside a polling station. There is no rule whatever to say that younger children cannot be taken into a polling station. Against a background of falling turnouts, we must do everything that we can to encourage people to vote, and to make it easier—not harder—for them to do so.
    Mr. Crausby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hardly any doctors ever refuse an application by a pensioner for a postal vote? Should we not now save NHS time by allowing all pensioners the right to request a postal vote—perhaps with an application form in the pension allowance book?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We need to do everything that we can to encourage people to participate. The simple fact is that the transaction involved in voting—a pencil cross on a piece of paper—now appears to many to be old-fashioned and inconvenient, and polling stations are not necessarily sited in convenient places. I am keen to see an extension of postal voting to almost anyone who wishes it.
    Mr. David Trimble: In any changes that are made, will the Home Secretary ensure that effective steps are taken to combat electoral fraud and vote stealing—a serious problem, not just in Northern Ireland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom? The Home Secretary must know that some of the measures that he has mentioned are the very means by which such electoral fraud is committed.
    Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman says: these problems are not confined—as the myth has it—to Northern Ireland. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has a question on the Order Paper about problems in respect of the high numbers registered for proxy votes. The overriding and guiding principle for the working party on electoral procedures—chaired by the Under-Secretary-has been to ensure the integrity of the process. However, provided we get the procedures correct, there is no reason why, for example, there cannot be an extension of postal voting—a separate issue, and a system that is more secure than proxy voting—without undermining the integrity of the electoral process.
    Mr. Forth: Surely the Home Secretary would not want to play any part in trivialising the voting process. Does he accept that it is not unreasonable to ask someone, in casting his vote, to take the trouble to go to a polling station between the very early hours of the morning and the late hours of the evening? Why should that be seen as so difficult? Why cannot a modern, mature electorate cope with that? Why should we have to spoon-feed people in the important matter of voting?
    Mr. Straw: I see that the Conservative party is still intent on no compromise with the electorate. Such in-your-face hostility is unlikely to attract the right hon.
    8
    Gentleman many more voters than he managed on the previous occasion. His approach should not recommend itself to his Front-Bench colleagues.
    Mr. Forth: Answer the question.
    Mr. Straw: I shall answer the question. Our voting arrangements were last changed to any degree in 1883, and life has moved on since then. [Interruption.] Evidently it has not moved on for the unreconstructed right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). In a modern democracy, we ought to ensure that, consistent with the proper integrity of the process, the system is made as easy and attractive for people to vote as possible. Surely we all have an interest in maximising turnouts at elections.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: In reaching a compromise with the electorate, will the Home Secretary go back to one, single, easy to understand and to administer system for all elections? Is it fair to introduce five different election systems in the space of two months for the same electorate within the UK? Rather than considering weekend voting, could we return to the first-past-the-post system? Or is the Home Secretary running scared, as such a system would have returned 65 Conservatives and probably a single-figure total of Labour Members to the European Parliament after the recent elections?
    Mr. Straw: Running scared is not one of my habits. There is much to be said on all sides about different voting methods. I recommend to the hon. Lady the speech that I made on the first Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, in which I talked about horses for courses. Whatever the arguments in favour of different voting systems, no one can argue that the electorate did not understand the system. That is a condescension. There is overwhelming evidence from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the United Kingdom that the voters understand the system; whether they agree with it is a different question.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not discount the views of those who find voting on Sunday offensive. I have sent him representations from my constituency, which is strongly Methodist. I know that many of my constituents are over 60, and can therefore of course be discounted, but there are still many people who regard this as a Christian country and find it offensive to be asked to vote on Sunday.
    Mr. Straw: People who are over 60 are the least to be discounted, especially by this Government. I fully accept that there are those who would not want to vote on a Sunday, for religious reasons; there are also people, including members of the Orthodox Jewish faith, who for religious reasons would find it difficult if not impossible to vote on a Saturday. That argues for extending voting over the weekend on both Saturday and Sunday.
    Mr. John Greenway: We are grateful for the consultation with the Under-Secretary, and we believe that the proposals are sufficiently radical to warrant a public consultation. What has happened to the legislative

    9
    prospects of the Neill committee report? The Home Secretary talks about no compromise. That ought to be the slogan for recommendations 83 to 88, on the conduct of referendums. Why do Ministers seem willing to rush headlong into legislating on the recommendations of the working party, when the Neill report was specifically commissioned by the Prime Minister and ought to be the priority?
    Mr. Straw: In this Government, we can have more than one priority. I promised that there would be a draft Bill in response to the Neill recommendations by the summer recess and I fully intend to keep that promise. The Bill will deal with, among many other things, the recommendations on the conduct of referendums. There is no reason at all why we should not proceed as quickly as possible to put in place the other changes that were not dealt with directly by Neill in respect of electoral procedures. I am very grateful for the contributions of Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and others on the working party. It is in the interests of everybody who believes in democracy to ensure that our voting procedures are brought up to date.

    Non-Home Office Police Forces
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What plans he has to review the control, role, responsibility and powers of non-Home Office police forces. [89214]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): None. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not persuaded that a need for such a review has been demonstrated, but he is ready to consider, with colleagues, as appropriate, any particular areas of concern.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I appreciate the fact that I was sent, unsolicited, the brief that my hon. Friend has used to reply to me this afternoon. I am grateful, because I have had time to appreciate how inadequate that brief is. Will he confirm that it does not tell us that, when we were in opposition, Labour Members supported an amendment that I tabled to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill to give powers, in extremis, to British Transport, Ministry of Defence and Royal Parks constabulary police officers, when action is needed just outside their jurisdiction and no Metropolitan police officer is available, or when such an officer needs support? Will he further confirm that the brief does not tell us that the senior police officers of those forces and their representative organisations think that there should be a change?
    My hon. Friend's predecessor, now Secretary of State for Wales, was clued up to the issue. Will my hon. Friend tell his officials that it needs to be reconsidered, because within a stone's throw of here there are officers who have no more powers of arrest than you or I, Madam Speaker, and that situation puts them in jeopardy? Will he return the brief and give those officials two out of 10?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic force. He brings an unprecedented historical knowledge to the role of the non-Home Office forces and I shall certainly take into account what he says. If he has any particular points that he would like to bring home to me in the privacy of my office, he is more than welcome to attend there.

    Passports
    Mr. David Heath: How many applications for passports are currently awaiting processing. [89215]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As of yesterday, the number of passport applications waiting to be processed was just under 500,000, a reduction of 6 per cent. on the previous week's figure. That is equivalent to just under four weeks' output. Passport offices in Belfast, Peterborough and Newport have cleared virtually all declared July travel dates. Liverpool passport office has cleared virtually all travel dates up to 19 July and expects to clear the remainder this week. Glasgow has cleared all travel dates up to 22 July.
    Last week, the Passport Agency issued 166,000 passports, the highest weekly total on record. In addition, the Post Office estimates that between Wednesday and Saturday last week it extended 105,000 passports.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information, but I have difficulty reconciling it with the admirably clear information that is provided by the Passport Agency on its website. It appears to indicate that four out of the six passport offices had an increased processing time two weeks ago and that Glasgow and Liverpool now have a 42-day turnaround for an average passport application, which would mean that an application made today would be processed by the end of September—long after the holiday period. Can the Home Secretary confirm whether those figures are correct? Can he reconcile them with the figures that he has given and explain when things will get better?
    Mr. Straw: I confess to the House that I have not consulted any part of the internet this morning: I prefer the accuracy of paper and ink—
    Mr. David Davis: So much for electronic voting.
    Mr. Straw: I did not say that I would vote electronically, although I did in the Labour party's national executive committee elections and I enjoyed the experience. I shall write to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but I do not think that there is any contradiction between the figures that I have given and those that he has cited. His figures represent the total delay in respect of each of the passport offices, but they are all processing first and foremost those applications with July travel dates. That, for the time being, necessarily means that those with later travel dates will be dealt with at a later time than otherwise would be the case.
    I am clear, however, that—although the Passport Agency is not yet out of the woods—the changes that I put in place two weeks ago are making a difference. Output is now at record levels, and the changes in respect of the Post Office have considerably relieved the pressure of immediate applications. That is coinciding with what we expect to be the beginning of a seasonal downturn in the total number of applications.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that we do not

    11
    expect to see this problem arise again? Can he also confirm to the hard-pressed staff in the offices in my constituency that they will no longer be faced with up to 30 callers a day trying to sort out their problems?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is quite right to complain about what has happened in the Passport Agency. I made the position clear to the House when I spoke about it two weeks ago and I apologised to those many people—not only the 132 who have been paid compensation, but the many thousands of others—who have been inconvenienced by the changes. What has happened is unacceptable and we are working hard to make sure that it does not happen again.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the right hon. Gentleman has already decreed that the 10 charge for a passport application in person should be waived in circumstances in which an individual is obliged through no fault of his own to make that application, will he now go one stage further, do the decent thing and agree that any such individual—obliged, often at short notice, to make a visit to a passport office—will be reimbursed, in full, his travel costs?
    Mr. Straw: We could not conceivably agree with that proposition, and I doubt very much whether Conservative Members, if they were in government, could either. Indeed, I am sure that they did not agree with that proposition when problems were encountered—they were not on the present scale but they existed—at the roll-out of the previous computer system in 1989.
    The London office is a caller office, as some people require passports at very short notice. I have said previously that the £10 caller fee should be waived for people who apply for passports but who do not receive one in the 10-day target period and must then go to one of the caller offices around the country. I think that that is fair.

    Electoral Procedures
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: When he expects the working party on electoral procedures to report; and what changes he proposes to make in the proxy voting system. [89217]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I am aware that the police are investigating a number of allegations of proxy voting abuse and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any of them specifically.
    The final report of the working party on electoral procedures, which I chair, is likely to include a number of recommendations on absent voting. However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in an earlier answer, we have to be convinced that any changes that are made will not undermine the integrity of the ballot.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I know that he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are aware that, in May, about 28 per cent. of the electorate in Burnley's Daneshouse ward claimed proxy votes. The working party report will soon be
    12
    available, and it is important to do everything possible to ensure that people are able to cast a vote, whether it be by post or by proxy. Is not the integrity of the vote the overriding factor, and should not the aim be to ensure that a person's vote is cast as that person wishes?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. This country has a long and proud tradition of free and fair elections without any form of corruption. Any changes that we make must uphold both the spirit and the letter of that tradition.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Although changes such as increased proxy voting, voting at the weekend or electronic voting may be introduced, is it not most important that people are on electoral registers? If we can resolve the problem of the 3 million or 4 million people missing from electoral registers, we can move on to consider the other matters that have been raised. Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of electoral registers should be given priority consideration?
    Mr. Howarth: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked for a number of years to raise awareness of the problem of the number of people who do not appear on electoral registers. I assure him that we have studied the matter very carefully. An announcement will be made about it later this week.

    Hunting With Dogs
    Mr. David Watts: If he will bring forward proposals for legislation on hunting with dogs. [89218]
    Dr. Howard Stoate: If he will bring forward legislation on hunting with dogs. [89220]
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will bring forward legislation on hunting with dogs. [89224]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we are actively considering how to take this issue forward.
    The House voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on hunting in a free vote in 1997. Since then, we have been discussing ways of bringing this issue to a conclusion. We hope to make an announcement of our specific proposals soon.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, which will be warmly welcomed by the vast majority of the public. However, does he agree that any legislation must ban hunting with dogs totally, and that no opt-out should be introduced under any further legislation?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will be aware of the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. Obviously, we will bring forward our proposals in due course, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and many others will welcome them very warmly when they appear.
    Dr. Stoate: On behalf of my constituents in Dartford, who are overwhelmingly in favour of a ban, I thank my

    13
    hon. Friend for his reply. Is my hon. Friend aware of the latest MORI opinion poll, which puts 72 per cent. of people against hunting with dogs? Is he further aware that the survey shows that Conservative supporters are three to one against hunting, dwellers in rural communities are four to one in favour of a ban and readers of The Daily Telegraph are two to one in favour? In view of that, will he be able to produce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity—hopefully, before the end of this Parliament?
    Mr. Howarth: If the opportunity permits, that is exactly what we hope to achieve. Of course, my hon. Friend is right. A large proportion of the public have repeatedly shown in polls that they favour legislation of that sort. Indeed, a majority of hon. Members have shown that they favour such legislation. For Labour Members, there will be a free vote and I hope that all the other parties will take a similar position.
    Dr. Iddon: My hon. Friend knows that strong feelings run in all quarters of the House on this issue. I hear what he says about a free vote. Has he or have the Government had discussions with Opposition Members to ensure that there will be a free vote across the House, especially bearing in mind some of the press reports today? Furthermore, will he agree that all hon. Members ought to be welcome to express their opinions freely without being gagged?
    Mr. Howarth: I can speak only for the Government when I say that the intention is that we will have a free vote. There are certainly compelling reasons why the Opposition may be persuaded that a free vote would be appropriate.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: So that hon. Members on both sides of the House and on both sides of this free vote issue will know how things stand, can we be clear whether this will be a Home Office Bill in Government time, introduced by Home Office Ministers? Will the Minister be publishing—at the time that the Bill is published, or before—the work done by the Home Office on the policing of a hunt ban and the memorandum in which he appeared to say that the International Fund for Animal Welfare would switch its attention from the issue to the Government if it were not resolved quickly?
    Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I will not comment on leaked documents—
    Mr. James Gray: What about the money?
    Madam Speaker: Order. Questions must not be asked from a sedentary position. I reprimand the hon. Gentleman. He must ask questions only when I call him.
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker.
    To answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), there are three options, all of which are under consideration. The first is a Government Bill, the second the possibility of a private Member's Bill and the third the possibility of an
    14
    amendment to a Government Bill. At this stage, we have not adopted a particular position, but we shall in due course make our position clear.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Has the hon. Gentleman ever been to the Lincolnshire agricultural show? Is he aware that, at last month's show, there was a display of the five local hunts, which was by far the most popular display at the show? Does he understand the dismay, bewilderment and extreme anger that would be felt by those who were at that show at the suggestion that the pastime that they so vigorously support should be made criminal? Does he not realise that would be an outrageous infringement of civil rights? Will he understand that this Government will long be remembered as the Government who released killers, but threatened with imprisonment those who have long supported the traditional country sports?
    Mr. Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably not be surprised to learn that I did not attend that particular agricultural affair, but I acknowledge that there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument. Indeed, there are strong feelings on both sides of the House and they are not universally shared by members of particular parties. The truth of the matter is that the House expressed its view on the issue in this Parliament and the public have expressed their view in many opinion polls. The balance of the argument must be to move the issue further forward. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not help his cause by using arguments that simply do not stand up to close scrutiny.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Is the Minister aware that the country likes Government policy to be consistent, and that we like Ministers to be consistent too, even though they may occasionally be wrong? Is it consistent to change the law so as to put in prison people who hunt vermin with hounds and, at the same time, to release terrorists from prison?
    Mr. Howarth: I have to point out that the Opposition supported the principles behind the Good Friday agreement, and it is, frankly, wrong for the hon. Gentleman to condense both that issue and hunting. I am sure that he, like the rest of us, wants to see peace in Northern Ireland, and I should not have expected the hon. Gentleman to raise this issue along with that of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Eddie O'Hara: When considering the issue, will my hon. Friend reflect, as I have, on the fact that those who demonstrate outside the House and on the Opposition Benches, saying, "Hands off our country sports," answer themselves out of their own mouths when they reveal that they make a sport out of pursuing, terrorising, torturing and killing high-order sentient creatures?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes his own point. I simply repeat what I said a few moments ago: there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument, but I hope that those who want to express strong views will do so in a non-violent and

    15
    civilised way. The House is eager to debate the issue and, if we do so on those terms, we will not exercise ourselves wrongly.
    Mr. David Lidington: Given the honourable and long-held difference of opinion on this issue among hon. Members on the Government Benches as well as those on the Opposition Benches, will the Minister say whether the free vote among Labour Members will, as with Conservative Members, include members of the Front Bench and apply to all stages of any legislation?
    Does the Minister accept that Home Office Ministers regarded such legislation as the very last thing that they wanted dumped on their desks at this time? They have been landed with it by the desperation of spin doctors at No. 10, who are in a panic about how to distract media attention away from the public slanging match between the Prime Minister and his deputy, and by their fears of a hostile advertising campaign operated by one of the Labour party's £1 million paymasters.
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of a sum of money that was paid to the Labour party before the previous general election. Perhaps he and his hon. Friends would like to explain why a large sum from the same organisation was paid to the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats.
    In his remarks last week, the Prime Minister was reflecting the will of the House and the view of the people of this country. Perhaps it is about time that the hon. Gentleman and his party started to make similar reflections. They could not be more wrong about how we arrived at this position, and they could not be more wrong about who they think they will become popular with by taking the line that they have taken.

    Anti-social Behaviour Orders
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What steps he is taking to ensure that the powers contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to tackle anti-social behaviour are used. [89219]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It is for the courts to decide whether an anti-social behaviour order can be granted. I have, however, issued detailed guidance to make clear the kind of circumstances in which applications should be sought. The orders provide a valuable tool to help combat anti-social behaviour, and I encourage the relevant authorities in areas where such behaviour is a problem to consider their use.
    Mr. Coaker: On tabling a parliamentary question some two or three weeks ago about the use of the orders, I was surprised to find that, since they had come into effect in April, only one had been issued. The Home Secretary will know that many of us suffer the blight of anti-social behaviour on our estates, and were looking forward to the Crime and Disorder Act as a way of combating such behaviour. Will he do all that he can to encourage police forces, such as Nottingham police, and local authorities, such as Gedling district council, to use the orders that he has given them to combat behaviour that is driving many of our citizens absolutely mad?
    Mr. Straw: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that undertaking. There was huge support for the idea of the
    16
    orders—expressed nationally by the police and local authority associations, and to me personally by the police and local authorities when I visited his area of Nottinghamshire last year. Unfortunately, when new orders are introduced and this House and the other place create new offences, it often takes time for the authorities to make proper use of them. We are doing all that we can nationally to encourage the police and local authorities to make full use of the orders for which they asked. In turn, I ask every right hon. and hon. Member on both sides of the House to do everything possible to cajole and encourage their local police forces and authorities to make the fullest possible use of the orders.
    Sir Robert Smith: Does the Home Secretary remember that, when the Crime and Disorder Bill was in Committee, Ministers gave assurances that the orders were a last resort and were not to be oversold? Is there not a danger in the question and the answer that he has given of sending out the wrong message, resulting in the orders being used as a blanket system of justice rather than a last resort?
    Mr. Straw: We are not in any sense overselling the idea of the orders. They are indeed a last resort, although many people in many constituencies are at the end of their tether as their civil liberties—their fundamental freedom to enjoy life in peace without being harassed and intimidated by anti-social neighbours—are being withdrawn. That is why the orders are there. I think that they have already had some effect. The police tell me that the threat of them is already helping to ensure greater compliance in some neighbourhoods. So, the figures of the orders granted belie their effectiveness. They are a last resort, but they are there to be used, and used they should be.
    Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that magistrates receive information on, and training in, the use of anti-social behaviour orders, and that they are made aware of the results of imposing such orders in a national demonstration project along the same lines as the community service demonstration projects?
    Mr. Straw: The last point is an excellent idea, which I shall pursue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. There was considerable discussion with the Magistrates Association and the stipendiary magistrates, as well as with the Justices' Clerks Society, about the draft guidance. So, a great deal of work has already been done to draw to the attention of magistrates the detailed way in which the orders work and, indeed, the need for them.

    Special Constabulary
    Mr. Bob Russell: What measures are being taken to increase recruitment to the special constabulary. [89221]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): We have supported the police forces' recruitment campaigns by holding a "Specials' Week" during which I and a number of my ministerial colleagues attended events held by forces around the country to highlight and promote the service provided by special constables. To complement the

    17
    activities, which were held during January, some forces received local press and advertising funded by the Home Office at a cost of £500,000. In addition, the Home Office has produced a recruitment video, a series of posters, and a recruitment brochure for the forces.
    Mr. Russell: Does the Minister accept that that support has not been very successful, bearing in mind that the number of specials has fallen by 3,250 since the Government came into office? If that haemorrhaging continues at the same rate, by the end of this Parliament, the reduction will be nearly 40 per cent. Is there a place for the special constabulary in the modern police force? If so, is it not time that the Government did something positive about that?
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right in that the specials play a very important role in our police force. We have done as much as possible to ensure that the police are given help to recruit them. Although he is right to say that the number of specials has recently slightly decreased, I should point out that they are now trained to a sophisticated level and are used for a much wider variety of duties. Rather than just, as used to be perceived, helping out at fetes, and so on, they are now used in a variety of expertise policing. They bring their own skills to the job. They are very important indeed. We want people from all walks of life to join the specials, because they are a very good practical example of police and public working together.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman congratulates the chief constable in his area, because, in that area, the specials have continued to do extremely well and are recruiting with increasing success. I hope that he will send out a message to all his constituents, encouraging them to join the specials, because they can give a very good service to the public.
    Mr. David Drew: I agree with what has been said about the excellent work of the specials and the depth of their interest and commitment. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental problem in becoming a special is the need to take time off work, and that there is a need to mount a proper campaign—perhaps alongside the Territorial Army and school governors—to persuade employers of the value of that activity? That would encourage people to put themselves forward for that interesting and rewarding activity.
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right. We are considering all methods of bringing more people into the specials. We want to work with employers so that they give support by making available the time that is needed for training. We want there to be more specials. If hon. Members have any ideas that might be used to recruit specials, we shall be happy to work with them on those ideas. All of us together can increase not just the number of specials but the important role that they play in the police service.
    Mr. Edward Gamier: Can the hon. Lady, for whom I have the highest regard, tell me how
    18
    many additional special constables will be needed to police hunt saboteurs now that the Prime Minister has made an announcement about the banning of hunting?
    Kate Hoey: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that such matters will be looked into when a Bill—of whatever sort, and whoever it is introduced by—is discussed by the House.

    Detention Orders
    Mr. Bill Rammell: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on detention orders relating to people with severe personality disorders. [89225]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the House on 15 February 1999, Official Report, columns 601–03, set out our proposals to introduce powers of indeterminate detention for dangerously severely personality disordered individuals. The development of this policy has required joint working at all levels between the Home Office and the Department of Health—including extensive discussions between Ministers from both Departments.
    We shall publish the consultation paper on the management of such persons shortly.
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that it is illogical that doctors can detain people with treatable severe personality disorders while members of a much more dangerous group, those with untreatable severe personality disorders, cannot be detained in that way and must be released unsupervised into the community? Does that not underline the need for co-operation and action between the respective Departments? Can my hon. Friend assure me and the House that the discussion that is taking place will lead to greater security for children and families?
    Mr. Boateng: I can give my hon. Friend that categoric assurance. It is vital that a multi-disciplinary approach is taken to that group of highly dangerous individuals. A determination to protect the public must be at the heart of all that we do.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: I welcome very much what the Minister has said and the discussions that are taking place but, as I understand it, legislation will be needed to require people with severe untreatable personality disorders to be detained. That is obviously a priority. When will legislation be brought before the House to make that a priority? It is what the public want—perhaps more than his hunting Bill.
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Lady will appreciate that it is not for me to anticipate the Queen's Speech, but she will also know that we are showing all expedition in relation to that group of dangerous individuals. She will know of the £700 million that we are already investing to improve services for the mentally ill, and of the extensive action that the Government have taken in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to put public protection at the heart of the

    19
    treatment of those who present a danger to the public. She can be sure, therefore, that we shall take this matter forward at an early date.
    Ms Bridget Prentice: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that, when he is consulting the Department of Health on this issue, he might take a look at my ten-minute rule Bill, the Restraining and Protection Orders Bill, which covered people who have severe personality disorders? Will he look at that very carefully, because health authorities in particular may have a role to play in ensuring that people who have such severe personality disorders are taken to a place of safety—
    20
    especially if such people put themselves forward to the health authority because they know that they are at risk of being a danger to the rest of society?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. She will recognise, however, that one of the problems is that psychiatrists say that they can do nothing for those who come within this group under mental health legislation. Similarly, those in the group may not yet have committed a criminal offence, although they almost certainly will do so. Therefore, we have to find a third way to put the public's protection at the heart of the treatment of this group of individuals.

Madam Speaker's Statement
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: Following questions to the Secretary of State for Wales on 7 July, Members raised with me points of order relating to the matters on which the Secretary of State can be questioned following the transfer of powers on 1 July. This issue also applies to questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I should emphasise that I do not wish the rules relating to questions to become unduly restrictive; but a fundamental rule relating to questions is that they must relate to matters for which Ministers in this House are responsible.
I also note that the Procedure Committee, whose report on the procedural consequences of devolution has still to be debated, recently concluded that the rules for questions must recognise the fact of devolution and limit the range of permissible questions to Ministers at Westminster.
Where matters have been clearly devolved to the Scottish Parliament or to the Welsh Assembly, questions on the details of policy or expenditure would not be in order. Where Secretaries of State have a residual, limited or shared role, questions should relate to that role.
Examples of such limited areas of responsibility are: information that the United Kingdom Government are empowered to require of the devolved Executive; matters that are included in UK legislation relating to Scotland; all primary legislation relating to Wales; matters subject to substantive liaison arrangements between UK Government and the devolved Executives; operation of any remaining administrative powers.
In the case of reserved matters that are the responsibility of other Government Departments, questions should be tabled to the relevant Secretary of State. If questions are inappropriately directed to the Secretaries of State for Scotland or Wales, I would expect Ministers to transfer them to the responsible Department in the usual way.
These guidelines follow directly from the decisions of the House in enacting the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998, and will ensure that priority is given to questions on those matters for which Ministers here are responsible. The House will also be greatly helped if Ministers confine their answers to matters for which they have responsibility.
I have offered this guidance to the House to enable the Table Office better to advise all Members on orderly questions. Once the House has had a chance to debate the
22
fourth report of the Procedure Committee and the House has had some experience of the operation of the rules, I shall, of course, review the terms of my ruling.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask whether Lord Steel of Aikwood, as the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, will also put before Holyrood the same stringent guidelines—the mirror image reversed—so that if we obey the rules that you have, understandably, set out, Madam Speaker, the same rules will be obeyed by the Holyrood Parliament? Have there been discussions along those lines?
Madam Speaker: I always inform the House first, and I have just done so. The guidance will be sent to Holyrood now that I have made my statement. These are not stringent rules. I have tried to be helpful to the House and to Ministers. These are simply guidelines until we have the fourth report from the Procedure Committee debated and until we see how things work. Perhaps we can then look at matters afresh. As I have said, I shall review these guidelines.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any mechanism whereby you can ensure and guarantee to the House that any legislation brought before the House by a private Member or by the Government is in no way unduly influenced by money changing hands, or by threats of money changing hands in one way or another? Is there a mechanism whereby we can ensure that, so that the legislative mechanism is seen not to be unduly influenced by wealthy people making threats, even to the Government of the day?
Madam Speaker: I have considerable responsibilities, but I fear that they do not go that far. Of course, we have the Neill committee on which we rely a great deal. Perhaps that is a matter that the Neill committee may consider in the coming months.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I am sorry, Mr. Kaufman. I have dealt with the point of order. There can be no further point of order.

Personal Statement (Mr. Ernie Ross)
3.35 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a personal statement.
The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, in its eighth report published on 29 June 1999, considered the first special report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on a premature disclosure of reports on Sierra Leone. The Standards and Privileges Committee concluded that my action as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee in making available to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a draft of the Committee report was
"a serious interference with the select committee system",
and that my conduct fell below the standards that the House was entitled to expect from its Members.
I believe that all hon. Members should accept reports of the House that are critical of them, and of course I do so. I therefore apologise to the House for my actions in this matter. With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall now withdraw from the House.
Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Ross.

BILL PRESENTED

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Robertson, Mr. Secretary Michael, Mr. Secretary Reid and Mr. Paul Murphy, presented a Bill to make provision for the suspension in certain circumstances of devolved government in Northern Ireland and the exercise of certain functions conferred by or under Part V of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 136].
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just been to the Vote Office, and the Northern Ireland Bill that has just been presented is not available to right hon. and hon. Members. The Vote Office tells me that it has been told that the Bill may be available by 9 pm this evening, but that there is no guarantee of that.
  I understand that the content of Bills and when they are debated in the House is a matter for the Government and not for you, Madam Speaker, but I wonder whether you have some power to help Back Benchers. The Bill may literally affect the peace of the realm. We are told that the Government expect it to go through all of its stages tomorrow. Have you the power to specify a time beyond which it would not be acceptable for the Bill to be made available to Back Benchers, if indeed it is to be considered tomorrow?
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you also advise the House how you envisage that it will be possible for hon. Members properly to consider such a Bill, properly
  24
  to consult those who may legitimately be interested in it, and more crucially, properly to table amendments? how can the House have time to consider the original text of the Bill and the text of any amendments that may be tabled? Your advice is essential in this case, because there seems to be a great danger that the House will get itself into extreme difficulty in legislating properly, with such absurd time constraints placed on it.
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)rose—
  Mr. Gerald howarth rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House and I are quite capable of dealing with the matter so far.
  Mrs. Beckett: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Of course I understand the anxieties expressed by right hon. and hon. Members, and I respect in particular the concerns of Back-Bench Members who have not been involved in the detailed discussions.
  It may be helpful to the House to know that discussions are proceeding to try to get the Bill as strong and as robust as we can, so that there will broad agreement. The Leader of the Opposition and other relevant, closely involved parties are being kept informed and involved in those discussions. We hope that the Bill will be available in time for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading. That can be facilitated if the House agrees a motion that the Government have already tabled for decision later today.
  Mr. Gerald howarth rose—
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. May I just reply to those points of order. I am not in a position to delay tomorrow's legislation in any way. I am aware that Bill is not available—I made inquiries myself—but that is not unusual, as hon. Members of long standing will be aware. It is not disorderly, and it is no discourtesy to the house, not to have a Bill ready at this stage. That has happened on a number of occasions and we have heard what the Leader of the House said.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand—and, indeed, I know from my own experience—that sometimes Government Bills are produced to the House when they are not in their final form. I cannot immediately think, however, of any example of that being the case when a Bill was to be put through all its stages the following day. I have to say through you that, as a Back Bencher, I want the protection of the Chair against those arrangements, which the Leader of the House tells us are being made in corners and behind Benches, even if they are being made with the most distinguished Members of the house. Your protection is for the vast majority of Members—the Back Benchers, who have as much right, duty and responsibility as the Front Benchers to consider the legislation.
  Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman might put those points about his dissatisfaction with matters in the Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order arises from your

  25
  statement, which will be very much welcomed in Wales, and I hope that we can avoid the confusion of last Wednesday. It has been suggested that Members representing constituencies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should no longer vote on matters affecting England only and that the House would act as an English Parliament on certain occasions. You will recall that we were all elected as representatives of the United Kingdom. Could you give some guidance, now or possibly in the future, on what the conduct of Members of Parliament should be when matters affecting England only come before the house?
  Madam Speaker: I expect all Members who have been elected to the House to participate in all the procedures of the house. Whether that means going into the Lobby or not is up to them. It is not for me to determine whether Members should vote, but as far as I am concerned, they certainly have the right, the privilege and the responsibility so to do.
  Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to return to this matter for a moment, but it is of considerable importance. The Northern Ireland Bill has been presented, but its Second Reading is not until tomorrow, when all stages will be taken. May we have the assurance that you, or whoever is in the Chair, will ensure that manuscript amendments will be accepted by the Clerks at the Table? That is imperative. Members may wish to amend the Bill, even if there has been agreement on it between those on the two Front Benches.
  Madam Speaker: I am very tolerant of such things, but that is a matter for the Chair. When the amendments come in, I shall certainly look at them and be as helpful as I can.
  Mr. Gerald howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Whatever the precedent may have been, is it not unsatisfactory in terms of the proceedings of this House—quite apart from the time scale involved—for the Government to have presented a Bill that is not yet in its final form? Surely the time has come for Bills to be presented to the House in a form that the House can debate.
  Madam Speaker: I have already indicated to the House that that is not a disorderly practice. Other Governments have presented Bills in a similar way. If there is a strong feeling among Members about Bills being ready when they are presented for First Reading, that is a matter for the Procedure Committee.

Standards and Privileges
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this house—
(i) approves the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 607); and
(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Ernie Ross, Member for Dundee West, from the service of the House for ten sitting days.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
3.43 pm
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and his Committee for the report and for the work that went into it. Its conclusions, which we are invited to approve, are divided into two: those that relate to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and those that relate to the Foreign Secretary and his Department. I do not propose to dwell on the former; the hon. Gentleman has recognised the offence and has apologised. If the House approves the motion, which I support, he will be punished by suspension and the incident will inevitably cast a small shadow over his future career, but the House is, by tradition, forgiving, generous and non-vindictive in such circumstances. I propose to respect that tradition and to say no more about him.
The bulk of the conclusions, however, are not about the hon. Member for Dundee, West; they are about the Government. With respect to the Leader of the house, the Select Committee and the Houseare entitled to a fuller explanation of what is said about them than the formal moving of a motion.
The second part of the report is symptomatic of how the Government have treated the House of Commons and its institutions. The hon. Member for Dundee, West has at least apologised for what he did to the Select Committee; the Government have not, despite having been asked to do so on several occasions—and they should. They used information, to which they knew they were not entitled, to denigrate a Select Committee report before it was published. As Andrew Parker wrote in the Financial Times on 24 February,
"Tony Blair, Prime Minister, and Mr. Cook went on the offensive to rubbish the report on the morning of publication, describing its criticisms as disproportionate and unfair".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) pointed out at the time, that was before the report was published.
The Foreign Secretary, when invited to apologise on 24 February, refused to do so; nor has he done so in his correspondence with the Select Committee, published in the report. It is typical of his high-handed approach, as is his refusal to attend this debate. He should have apologised, not least in view of the history of problems between him and the Select Committee, which goes back a year to his refusal to respond to its requests for information, and his assertion that the Select Committee had not unearthed a single piece of information not already highlighted in the Foreign Office's own inquiry. If the Foreign Secretary cannot express regret about how the Committee was treated, the Leader of the house, who has a broader responsibility, which I believe she takes seriously, should do so on the Government's behalf.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Before the right hon. Gentleman gets too carried away, I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave unprecedented access to Foreign Office papers and telegrams, which no Minister in the previous Government ever gave or would have dreamed of giving.
Sir George Young: The Foreign Secretary should apologise to the Select Committee and to the Housefor how he treated one of its institutions, and I regret that he has not done so.
May I deal briefly with page xv of the report and the role of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee? he is not criticised in the report and I do not criticise him myself. He was good enough to ring me this morning and to explain the background to the final paragraph on that page, which is an extract from a letter from the Foreign Secretary dated 17 March. It says:
"On the day before publication the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy Henderson, the head of the FCO Parliamentary Relations Department, making clear that the bulk of the Report's criticism would be27/6/2549 aimed at senior officials. Mr. Henderson minuted that exchange to officials within the FCO."
The questions that arise from that are: first, whether the briefing did take place and, if so, whether it was done with the knowledge and authority of other members of the Select Committee; and, secondly, whether it is common practice for Chairmen of Select Committees to do that in advance of publication. I also pose the question whether the hon. Member for Dundee, West might have referred to the briefing when he spoke after the Foreign Secretary's statement about the leak on 25 February.
The motion says nothing about paragraph 27, which refers to changes in the ministerial code. The Committee asks the Prime Minister to amend the code, and to notify the Committee and the house. Today's debate would have been the right time and place for the Leader of the Houseto respond to that recommendation, instead of moving the motion formally and saying nothing. Has the code been modified and, if so, how? What has happened to the recommendation in paragraph 29, where an undertaking was given on what would happen once the Committee had reported? have those instructions been issued?
Can we now assume that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned the argument that he put in his letter dated 17 March, which was dismissed so conclusively and unanimously by the Committee? I was surprised, as I expect other hon. Members were, to hear the Foreign Secretary assert on the "Today" programme that any Member could sit in on any Select Committee hearing, even when it was deliberating on its report. I trust that we shall hear no more of the spurious defence that the hon. Member for Dundee, West could have gained advance knowledge of the report in that way.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but a moment ago he asked about the ministerial code. As the wording of the motion makes plain, the Government accept the report and have accepted the recommendations about the code, and the Prime Minister will review the code in that light. As the motion says that we accept the report, it did not seem necessary to take the time of the Housefurther to elaborate on that.
Sir George Young: That is not acceptable. The ministerial code is an important document. It has been
28
changed, but we have not been told how or when it was changed. The right hon. Lady should have told the House at the beginning exactly what action the Government were taking in response to the Select Committee's recommendation.
This whole sorry episode is symptomatic of the way in which the Government and some of their supporters treat Parliament. They seek to bypass, marginalise and undermine it. The leaking of a Select Committee report and its use by Ministers is a short circuit of the system, and it renders less effective one of the instruments of the House that holds the Executive to account. Given the Government's majority, it is even more important that the constitutional checks are not overridden.
Today's debate is about one of the most blatant breaches of one of the conventions of the house. There have been other developments, such as the making of announcements outside the house, the dramatic increase in the number of special advisers, and the use of the Government information service for political ends, which was the subject of a recent debate in the house. Those are signs of an arrogant Government who believe that they no longer have to account for themselves in the Chamber. I had hoped that the Government might have learned some lessons from this sorry episode, but their response so far leads me to doubt that.
3.51 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not criticised in the report. He was under the impression that any Member of Parliament could go to a Select Committee, and that used to be the position. I frequently had to consider what would happen if somebody came into the Public Accounts Committee and witnessed a deliberative meeting. I concluded that I would ask that Member of Parliament to leave, and that if the hon. Member did not leave, I would adjourn the meeting, being prepared to meet on a subsequent occasion.
Standing Orders were changed following the realisation that that was the situation. Not all of us know about these changes. It was some time before I realised that the Standing Order had been changed in that way. The Foreign Secretary was not criticised for that: we pointed out that he was under a misapprehension, and we dealt with it accordingly.
The House has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who made a clear and unreserved apology. We welcome that, and respect him for it. The eighth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges follows two special reports from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which reported that my hon. Friend had admitted to sending a draft of our report on Sierra Leone to the Foreign Secretary in January, and to speaking to the Foreign Secretary's political adviser about the Committee's final conclusions. He had then resigned from the Committee, and we welcomed his acceptance of responsibility.
The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that the matter was serious, and that such actions were likely to constitute a substantial interference with the Select Committee system. The Select Committee on Liaison, which I chair, took the same view. It subsequently came to light that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West had also sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

29
the final version of the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on foreign policy and human rights. The Department had also received a draft of the Committee's report on European Union enlargement, although we did not know how it got it.
The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that the possession by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of early versions of its first three reports of the present Session was likely to constitute substantial interference with the Select Committee system. Again, the Liaison Committee took the same view as the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we set out in our report the circumstances surrounding the leak of the Sierra Leone report. If I may, I shall summarise them for the benefit of the house.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, who disagreed with the course of the Committee's inquiry, faxed a draft of the report to the Foreign Secretary's private office some time in the second week of January. At that time, the Committee was still informally considering successive drafts. My hon. Friend also sent a copy to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who did not show it to or discuss it with anyone. The draft report was seen by the Foreign Secretary's political adviser and by a number of officials before it was brought to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and the permanent under-secretary on 1 February. Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Committee proceeded to finalise the report, and it was published on 9 February.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised the question of a possible leak with you, Madam Speaker, after Question Time that afternoon. You advised him to pursue the matter in the Committee, which he did. The Committee wrote to the Foreign Office, asking whether it had received a copy of the report before its publication.
At the beginning of the Committee's next meeting, on 23 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West admitted responsibility for the leak. The matter was then referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. After we had begun our inquiry, we postponed consideration until the end of the Kosovo conflict, given the work load of the Foreign Office at the time. We received written evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Clerk of the house, and took oral evidence from certain Foreign Office officials who had seen the report, including the permanent under-secretary of state himself. We gave my hon. Friend the opportunity to appear before the Committee before we finalised our conclusions, but he indicated that he did not wish to do so.
I must emphasise that the Standards and Privileges Committee's conclusions were agreed to unanimously. That has been a characteristic of the Committee, as it was in the case of the more than 600 reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which it was my privilege to chair between 1983 and 1997. There are two main kinds of unanimity: that which results from acceptance of the facts disclosed, and that which relies on fudge to accommodate the various interests involved.
I have been irritated by comments that the Committee was dominated by Labour. In accordance with our rule, its composition reflects the composition of the house, which itself reflects the wishes of the electorate. The
30
Committee certainly does not operate on a party political basis. It contains Labour Members, Conservative Members, a Liberal Democrat and an independent, and all subscribed to the report. There is unanimity on all our reports—including, incidentally, the report on my right hon. Friend the Member for hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—and that unanimity is genuine. Moreover, during the Committee's discussions, members sometimes criticise others who belong to the same party. We should nail the claim that the Committee is party political.
The most important aspect of the leak of a draft report to a Minister is the risk that the Department concerned might attempt to influence the considerations of the Committee concerned. That would indeed strike at the heart of the examination of the Executive by a Select Committee: it would constitute a perversion of the system of inquiry. We are satisfied, however, that it did not happen in this instance.
In a letter to us, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West wrote:
"it became blindingly obvious to me that my actions in sending a copy of the draft Report to my two colleagues had effectively ruled out any opportunity that I had had of submitting substantial or indeed any amendments to this Report".
That is, in fact, what happened.
Sir Peter Emery: I am aware of the depth in which the right hon. Gentleman looks into matters such as this. The Houseis grateful for the service that he gives the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the briefing did not affect the Committee, but does not pre-knowledge of a report in a Department allow that Department to issue a presentation to the press and other media? In this instance, did not that presentation constitute a definite rubbishing of the report before it had even been published—or, at least, at the very moment of its publication? That cannot be to the advantage of those who have spent many months reading the report, and seeing what has been said. Is it not a weakness that we must overcome?
Mr. Sheldon: It is a weakness that has been around for a very long time. It should be remembered that the contents of final, confidential, revised documents are frequently relayed 48 hours before publication. Those involved have an opportunity to present their case. In any event, the very fact of an investigation alerts people who are being condemned, or traduced, or being dealt with in some other way, and gives them an opportunity to present their case—and they have a pretty good idea of what that case will be. I do not think that this is a particular problem, but as I have said, if it is, it has been a problem for a long time. Anyway, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that no one at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had any contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West between receipt of the draft and completion of the final report.
At this point, perhaps I should remind the House of the position of those who wish to attend a private meeting of a Select Committee. Until a few years ago, it was possible for any hon. Member to attend such a meeting, but Standing Order No. 126 now allows the Committee to prevent such an intrusion. Therefore, a Minister who is also a Member of the House is not now able either to

31
attend or to see the papers of a Select Committee that the Committee does not want him to see. That is the safeguard that we have now, which did not used to be present.
On 1 March, you, Madam Speaker, asked us to consider the general responsibilities of a Member who received a leaked draft report. We concluded:
"The Committee … entirely shares your view that the fundamental responsibility of a Member who finds himself or herself in this position must be to act in a way which does not impede the committee in the discharge of its responsibilities to the house. In our judgment the Member ought to make no use of leaked committee papers and should return them without delay to the clerk of the committee."
We agreed that the Prime Minister should amend the ministerial code, to require Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries to comply with that guidance. I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that he will review the wording of the code in the light of the report.
I should like to make it clear that the report makes no personal criticism of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). Clearly, it would have been preferable if they had sent the leaked drafts straight back to the Committee, but, at the time, they did not have the benefit of the advice that we have given the House on the subject. The draft report had been in the Foreign Office for several weeks before the Foreign Secretary was even told about it.
The Committee examined the responsibilities of officials who receive leaked Committee papers. The permanent under-secretary of state, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the head of the Department, explained to us that no guidance had been available before we made our ruling—it had been understood that it would have been wrong to make use of the papers, but not that they should be returned. We concluded:
"The duty of any official who receives leaked committee papers is exactly the same as that of a Member, namely to make no use of them and to return them without delay to the committee clerk".
Sir John Kerr told us that the Foreign Office had accepted that the guidance issued to Members should also apply to officials, and that other Departments were following that lead. We welcome that very much.
We note that Sir John had proposed that the guidance would be that officials in receipt of a leaked draft should return it to the Clerk of the Committee via the Minister. The Committee disagrees with that. The Minister has no business to see a leaked document. We concluded that the correct course of action should be for the official to return the documents directly to the Clerk of the Committee and to notify the Minister that he or she has done so.
Our Committee will examine the details of that guidance when it is produced. We share Sir John's hope that implementation of those instructions throughout Whitehall will deter potential leakers. Our position is clear:
"any unauthorised use of unpublished select committee documents received by a Department will in future be regarded by this Committee as a contempt."
I turn to the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. It is the Committee's considered opinion that such leaks strike at the heart of the role of Select
32
Committees as independent and efficient scrutineers of the Executive in a number of ways. Those leaks undermine trust within a Committee. A report from an earlier Privileges Committee pointed to the
"damage that leaks had created among Members on committees by undermining their mutual trust, one for another."
That is the basis of Select Committees. Members meet and it is only when they have trust for each that they are able to come to conclusions based on the facts. Over time, if a Select Committee is working well, that will become the basis of proper scrutiny by that Select Committee.
We went on to point out that Committees' morale could decline if some members showed scant respect for the rules of privilege or for the loyalty of colleagues who do not betray confidential matters. We agreed with our predecessor Committee about the destructive effects of leaks, and concluded that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West,
"as a member of a select committee charged with scrutinising the actions of a Government Department, disclosed confidential committee papers to a Minister in that Department without the knowledge of the other members of the committee and without the committee's approval. This was a clear breach of faith with the other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee which, as he recognised, made his position untenable. Moreover, it tended to undermine the Committee's authority by calling into question its independence from Government influence."
The House should be in no doubt that leaks from Select Committees to the Government are a most serious interference with the Select Committee system. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, he did own up straight away and stood down from the Committee, so that no suspicion fell on any of his colleagues. We arrived at the conclusion that my hon. Friend
"must have known at the time that what he did was wrong"
For all the reasons that I have outlined, we unanimously agreed that he should apologise to the House by means of a personal statement—which he has done honourably—and that a suspension for 10 sitting days was appropriate.
It is a grave matter for the Committee to recommend that the House should impose a suspension on a colleague, and it is a conclusion that we reached after much deliberation. My hon. Friend has explained that he disclosed the draft report to the Foreign Office because he profoundly disagreed with what his colleagues on the Select Committee were doing, and that he wished to alert Ministers to the fact that their Department would be criticised. There is no excuse for those actions. It is our firm view that what he did fell below the standards that colleagues on the Select Committee—indeed, all hon. Members—have a right to expect.
I ask the House to uphold our conclusions, and to approve the Committee's eighth report.
4.7 pm
Mr. Michael howard: I do not wish to make any comment on the conduct of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). He has accepted the Committee's judgment, and there is little more to be said about that.
My comments will be directed, in the context of the eighth report, to the conduct of the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd),

33
and of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
So far as the Foreign Secretary is concerned, the Committee's report is, in fact, quite damning. It deals with him at paragraphs 24 to 27. At paragraph 26, the Committee considered in detail the defence that he advanced for his conduct, and the conduct of those for whom he is accountable, in receiving and retaining draft reports of the Select Committee. The Committee, without qualification, rejected that defence. It seems to me to follow absolutely and inevitably from the Committee's findings that the Foreign Secretary was guilty of contempt of the house.
I have of course listened carefully to what the Standards and Privileges Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), has said, but I find his explanation for the lack of a specific finding in relation to the Foreign Secretary very far from convincing. That explanation may well go to mitigation of the Foreign Secretary's conduct, but the defence that he offered was rejected without qualification. The Foreign Secretary should, therefore, at the very least, apologise to the House for his conduct. His failure to do so and his absence from this debate themselves reinforce and aggravate the contempt that he has shown the house, and illustrate most vividly the contempt that the Government as a whole display for the house.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is there not a distinction between what the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls "holding the House in contempt" and being in contempt? he has accused the Foreign Secretary of being in contempt. Will he explain why—and under which rule?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to suggest that there is a distinction between the two kinds of contempt. However, I believe that the Foreign Secretary is guilty of both kinds. The reason—which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has asked me to specify—is simply this: in his evidence to the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Foreign Secretary advanced a defence as to why he should not be accused of having held the House in contempt. That defence was rejected out of hand by the Committee. The logic, therefore, is that the Foreign Secretary was indeed in contempt of this house, and the explanation given by the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, while it may go to mitigation, does not affect that point.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has great experience, but he completely misunderstands the term "being in contempt". He is simply talking rubbish.
Mr. Howard: That is an assertion, rather than an argument. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at paragraphs 24 to 27 of the report, where he will find ample justification for the points that I am making. Similar criticism applies also to the Minister of State.
Shona McIsaac: The right hon. and learned Gentleman points to paragraphs in the report which refer to the Foreign Secretary. Paragraph 26 states:
"It is the case that there is no precedent for regarding the disclosure of a draft report to another Member as a contempt."
Will he take that on board and stop going down this alley?
Mr. Howard: The fact that there was no precedent for regarding particular conduct as a contempt does not begin to mean that the conduct on the occasion in question was not a contempt. That is the point.
Mr. Sheldon: I thought that what the Committee said was quite clear—that it was not a contempt, but a misunderstanding. The Foreign Secretary thought that he could go to a Committee, as indeed I thought for some time after the introduction of Standing Order No. 126. Many Members still assume that they can go into a Select Committee. That was the view that we rejected—it had nothing to do with contempt. The Foreign Secretary thought that he had that right, and we said that he did not.
Mr. Howard: Even if that rule had not been changed, that would have been a fanciful and far-fetched reason for receiving a leaked report from the Committee and retaining it for a period of time.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: he did not.
Mr. Howard: The Foreign Secretary did receive such a leaked report, and he did retain it. He saw the report, and he did not return it. Even if the rule allowing hon. Members to attend Select Committee meetings had not been changed, it would be fanciful to suggest that that would have been an adequate defence. However, the rule had been changed, and the Foreign Secretary was capable of discovering that. He has not come to the Committee or to the House to say, "I am very sorry. I now know that the rules have been changed. Had I known, I would not have retained the report. I therefore apologise for the fact that I behaved in that way, in ignorance of the fact that the rule had been changed." That might have been an acceptable response. However, we have had no response of that kind, no apology and no recognition that what the Foreign Secretary did was wrong.
That is not the only aspect of this affair that merits close scrutiny. The first report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs referred to parliamentary questions relating to the time at which the Government might have had sight of the Committee's report on Sierra Leone. The report said:
"Though the answers to these questions are germane to the leak from the Committee, we express no opinion on them since this is a matter which the Committee on Standards and Privileges may wish to consider."
The Committee went on to draw particular attention to the Foreign Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 23 February. To appreciate the full significance of that question, one needs to look at the Minister of State's answer of 16 February, which is reproduced at annexe D to the report. The Minister of State was asked when he first saw the Select Committee report. He said that the report was first drawn to the attention of the Foreign Office when the Clerk collected it from the Select Committee on the morning of publication.

35
On 23 February, the Foreign Secretary for the first time gave a full account, putting up his hands and coming clean about the extent of the leak and his knowledge that the report had been seen by officials and by the Minister of State. The Foreign Secretary has claimed that the answer given on 16 February was "accurate, factual and correct". I do not believe that any objective commentator could possibly support that claim. He implicitly conceded as much in his answer of 23 February.
The question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham was not about leaks or about when the Foreign Secretary received the report. It was about statements made by the Foreign Office to the media. If he regards it as a sufficient discharge of his duty to answer questions accurately, factually and correctly, as he suggests, there was no need for him to disclose information about the leaked report in answer to my hon. Friend's question. He did so only because he knew that the game was up, as on that very day the hon. Member for Dundee, West put up his hands and made his admission. On 16 February, Foreign Office Ministers thought that they could get away with it, so they gave an answer that was completely at variance with the facts as they knew them to be; but on the 23rd, when the game was up, they came clean.
The Government make much of openness. In his introduction to the ministerial code of conduct, the Prime Minister said:
"In issuing this Code, I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their Government. We are all here to serve and we must all serve honestly and in the interests of those who gave us our positions of trust.
I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code."
We do not need to look far into the body of the code before reaching its guidance on ministerial answers to Parliament. Paragraph 1.iii of chapter 1 says:
"It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister".
Of course, the exercise of that sanction is a matter for the Prime Minister. This episode provides an illuminating illustration of the yawning gulf between his words and his deeds. The Foreign Affairs Committee specifically drew those parliamentary answers to the attention of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and it is a mystery to me why it did not investigate the matter.
My final point relates to the conduct of the hon. Member for Swansea, East. If the report is to believed—or, to be more accurate, if the Foreign Secretary's letter to the Committee, contained in the report, is to be believed—the hon. Member for Swansea, East gave a detailed briefing to the head of the Foreign Office's parliamentary relations department. If that were true, it would constitute a serious breach of trust in relation to the Committee, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. He told me this morning—and I imagine that he will repeat his account to the House if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker—that the Foreign Secretary's account is untrue.
36
I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Swansea, East by calling him an old friend of mine, but I have known him for a long time. I would simply say that the account that he gave me this morning is far more likely to be in character for him than the account given in the letter from the Foreign Secretary. Again, I am surprised that the Standards and Privileges Committee did not investigate the matter. Had it done so it might have got to the truth and the hon. Gentleman would have been spared the embarrassment that he has suffered in the past few days.
The Select Committee system is an essential element in parliamentary scrutiny of Government. The events disclosed and considered in the report indicate a systematic attempt by the present Government to suborn that system. It is a story that gives the lie to the protestations of the Government about their conduct.
The Prime Minister has famously said:
"You know me, I'm a pretty straight kind of guy."
Well, the report reveals that he does not run a straight kind of Government. The sooner the country wakes up to that fact, the better.
4.21 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard) has been extremely fair to me—an unusual case of Llanelli rallying to the defence of Swansea.
The Standards and Privileges Committee has again produced a powerful and thorough report, and its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), is to be commended on it. So far as it refers to the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I can say only that I much regret losing a diligent and valued colleague from the Committee and I regret also the circumstances of his leaving. He has given a full and honourable apology to the House this afternoon.
So far as the second issue is concerned—the appropriate conduct of Ministers and civil servants on receiving reports—it is clearly right that neither Ministers nor civil servants should make use of such reports and that they should return them immediately. I would have thought that that was common courtesy and should not necessarily be enshrined in a code. However, I welcome the fact that the Government have responded immediately and that the ministerial code is now to be revised.
The House will not be surprised if I concentrate on two parts of the eighth report that refer to me, the footnote on page ix and the last paragraph on page xv, which states:
"On the day before publication the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy Henderson, the head of the FCO Parliamentary Relations Department, making clear that the bulk of the Report's criticism would be aimed at senior officials."
Let me say from the start that I totally rebut the idea that I fully briefed that official or, indeed, any Minister or adviser, or that I divulged or intended to divulge details of the report.
The allegation of a full briefing is a serious one. It goes to the heart of the integrity of the Committee and to the authority of its Chairman. Over the two years I have been privileged to chair the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have done my utmost to be Parliament's man, independent of Government and seeking to keep the Executive

37
accountable for what they have done and what they have failed to do. The Committee has received many plaudits for that role.
What are the facts? I wear several hats in the house. Mr. Henderson, the head of the parliamentary relations department, had recently taken up his post. He asked my office to arrange an informal meeting to leave his card, as it were, and to seek my advice on how best to relate to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I also chair the house's Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch and I lead our delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly. I recall, for example, that the CPA figured largely in our conversation, in which I gave Mr. Henderson names of colleagues whom it would be valuable for him to meet.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report had, by that day, already been presented to the house. It was to be published the following day, so no question of privilege arose, and it was raised in our conversation only in passing. I recall saying to Mr. Henderson that I hoped that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would not rush to rubbish the report, and that anyone who had followed our proceedings would certainly know that officials, and not Ministers, were mainly in the frame. As Mr. Henderson was the man whose duty it was to try to improve relations between the Foreign Office and the Foreign Affairs Committee, which had been impaired in the course of our inquiry, I advised him that the Committee would never accept that the Government could prevent it from embarking on an inquiry by setting up an official inquiry, such as the Legg inquiry.
At the end of the meeting, I felt that I had done my best to do a good turn by giving Mr. Henderson the names of key parliamentary colleagues for him to meet. I believe that I actually introduced him to one or two of them.
I saw the eighth report of the Standards and Privileges Committee on 29 June, the day it was published. I was astonished and puzzled by the allegation of "detailed briefing", and immediately telephoned Mr. Henderson. I cannot recall the exact details of our conversation, but I do remember that I felt fully vindicated as a result of what he said to me, which was that I had done nothing improper and had said nothing that was not already effectively in the public domain.
Not only did I not fully brief Mr. Henderson, I had also scrupulously avoided seeing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, as a matter of principle. However, on the evening before publication, by chance I met my right hon. Friend briefly in the Division Lobby. I urged him not to rubbish our report, as he had criticised the Committee forcefully in December. I went no further: no more, and no less, was said.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is giving a most lucid explanation of the report's contents, in so far as they affect him. However, will he say why he apprehended that the Foreign Secretary might rubbish the report of the Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is Chairman?
Mr. Anderson: The answer is simple. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would understand my reasons had he read what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Committee when he appeared before it in December, in the course of our inquiry, or the various comments that my right hon. Friend made—or which were attributed to him—afterwards.
38
The report was thorough and, in my judgment, important. My hope was that it would be treated properly by the Department.
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, my memory of the events is not as clear as his, but am I correct in recalling that, over the weekend preceding the report's publication, there were references in the press—which I am sure did not emanate from my hon. Friend—to the effect that the report would be extremely critical of Ministers? Was it not in that context that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made his remarks?
Mr. Anderson: I shall come to the leaks over that weekend in a moment. As I shall explain to the house, I have received a letter of explanation from the official concerned, in which he stated that I had also told him how angry I was that there had been leaks over that weekend.
Sir John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has made a very serious statement. He has said that the Foreign Secretary's evidence to the Standards and Privileges Committee was materially incorrect. The Foreign Office minute, passed by Mr. Henderson to the Foreign Office officials concerned, of his discussion with the hon. Gentleman is available. It will clearly demonstrate either that a full briefing was given, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, or, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, that no such briefing was given. In light of that, may I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he request the Foreign Secretary today to place a copy of that minute in the Library of the house?
Mr. Anderson: I would not be unhappy with that, but I can probably go virtually as far, since I will shortly quote a letter from the official concerned which covers that same conversation.
After speaking to Mr. Henderson on 29 June on the telephone, I went immediately to the office of the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee, referred to the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and told the Clerk that Mr. Henderson had confirmed my recollection. Since I considered that a Committee matter, I asked the Clerk to write formally to his opposite number, Mr. Henderson, on behalf of the Committee, to ask in effect for further and better particulars before placing the correspondence before the Committee.
I received Mr. Henderson's reply this morning. It is dated Friday 9 July. I shall quote it in full to avoid any misunderstanding and any suggestion that I might have quoted it selectively. After the standard first paragraph, thanking the Clerk for his letter, it continues:
"To answer the points you raised:
'Who initiated the meeting on 8 February?'
The meeting took place at my initiative. It was an introductory courtesy call on the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and in my new role as head of Parliamentary Relations Department. The meeting had been arranged well before we knew that the Foreign Affairs Committee report into Sierra Leone would be released the following day;
'What were the circumstances in which the meeting took place?' The meeting took place over a cup of coffee in the cafeteria of 1 Parliament Street. It lasted a little less than one hour. We discussed a number of issues relating to the FCO's relationship with the Committee and more widely with Parliament in general;
'What did Mr. Anderson say to me about the Report?'

39
Mr. Anderson told me that the Report would primarily criticise officials rather than Ministers, focusing in particular on a perceived failure to respond to the seriousness of events. He also indicated that the Committee remained concerned about the FCO's reluctance to co-operate with the Committee until the Legg inquiry had completed its work and the decision to deny access to 'C'.
He regretted the press leaks of the report the previous weekend. He hoped that the FCO would react constructively to the serious points made in the Report and counselled against an aggressive or angry response.
'Whether what he said could be construed as a leak of the Sierra Leone Report?'
Mr. Anderson briefed me in general terms but did not go into detail on any of the Report's specific recommendations. It would have been odd if he hadn't mentioned it, given its release the following day."
The reply from Mr. Henderson goes a little further than I recall, but all the matters mentioned were fully in the public domain. There was certainly not a full briefing as alleged in appendix 4. There is a clear difference between the FCO letter in that appendix and Mr. Henderson' s letter, which suggests that he had not been consulted by the drafter of the letter before the report was issued. If he had been, I think that he would certainly have wished to revise it.
Yesterday, The Sunday Times reported that there would be a new row today in the House because details of the report were leaked to the FCO by me. The background is that the reporter—a respected reporter—sought to telephone me at 10.55 am on Saturday, rather belatedly. I did not return to my home until Sunday evening, when I collected the message on the answering machine. I therefore had no opportunity to put my side of the case before that damaging article was published in The Sunday Times yesterday. I now hope that The Sunday Times, as a responsible newspaper, will publish the facts next Sunday and, fairly, put the record straight.
Mr. David heath: I have no wish to defend any newspaper, but journalists at The Sunday Times will have read the Foreign Secretary's letter, which is printed in appendix 4 on page xv of the Committee's report, in which he clearly says that
"the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy Henderson".
That can be construed only as referring to a briefing on this issue, but what the hon. Gentleman has just said flatly contradicts that—so how could the Foreign Secretary have given that evidence to the Committee in that form?
Mr. Anderson: I can only surmise that the person who drafted the letter that went before the Standards and Privileges Committee and which appears in appendix 4 had not consulted Mr. Henderson before he did so. Obviously, the Foreign Secretary would have signed that letter in good faith.
In brief, I had given an hour of my time to help an official. During the meeting, the Sierra Leone report arose in passing. All that I said was general and in the public domain, as has been confirmed by the only other person involved—the official who was present. I fully expressed the Committee's known concerns, which could have been clear to anyone who had followed our proceedings.
My role in safeguarding the independence of Parliament against the Executive has been demonstrated clearly in the past two years by my chairing of the Foreign
40
Affairs Committee. I trust that my explanation will confirm that I did nothing improper. I therefore wholly refute the allegations and inferences made in the report.
4.37 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for clarifying the fact that he did not give a briefing to the Foreign Office official the day before the publication of the report. However, his later remarks sowed seeds of doubt about what different officials believed and what information they had to hand. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking that the minute will be made available.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I am happy to request that the minute be made available, but I have no powers to force anyone to divulge it.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification. I hope that the Leader of the House will give an undertaking to the House that she will ask her colleagues to ensure that the minute is placed in the Library because it will help to answer all the questions that hon. Members have raised today.
Mrs. Beckett: I have the utmost sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who has been placed, primarily by The Sunday Times, in a rather difficult position. He has, of course, reacted strongly to any suggestion that he has been wrongly involved in briefing. Coming to these matters with the benefit of a degree of impartiality and having read the references in the report, I did not interpret them in the way that my hon. Friend, let alone The Sunday Times, did, and it did not occur to me that any allegation was being made against my hon. Friend of the kind that he would clearly want to refute.
It seemed to me—as it does now that I have heard his explanation—that there has been a misunderstanding about the use of the word "full". My hon. Friend has made it clear that he gave an incoming official a full briefing about the work of the Select Committee, in which he touched on the matter of Sierra Leone. If the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) reads the Standards and Privileges Committee's report, he will find that it says that no use was made of the additional information. It does not, therefore, seem to me that the information was very germane to the report. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but whether he will feel that the matter needs to be pursued in that way or to that degree is another matter.
Mr. Davey: I do not think that the right hon. Lady's response is adequate. The House needs a promise that the minute will be published. The aim of this debate is to get to the bottom of the issues that the Committee was considering. The right hon. Lady seems to suggest that the newspaper misunderstood the report, but the report is very clear. On page xv, it says:
"the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy henderson, the head of the FCO Parliamentary Relations Department"—
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Read on.
Mr. Davey: I shall do so.

41
"making clear that the bulk of the Report's criticism would be aimed at senior officials. Mr. Henderson minuted that exchange to officials within the FCO."
So, people knew what was going on. The right hon. Lady and her friends should take cognisance of that and be more open to the house.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If this debate continues for the next 10 or 15 minutes, would there not be time for the Leader of the House to ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to allow the House to see the minute that was circulated after the meeting? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the right hon. Lady might want to describe in her winding-up speech the guidelines for Ministers on commenting on Select Committee reports when they cannot have had time to read them in detail? That seems one important issue. The right hon. Lady no doubt already has a briefing which she will read. How much nicer it would be if she also gave the Foreign Office briefing. The point has been made about the intensity of a noun and the strength of an adjective—"full briefing". That could be explained by the Government's disclosure, under open government rules, of a document that cannot be of any risk to anybody.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I hope that the Leader of the House heard his two points and will act on them.
Mrs. Beckett: I can help the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). The guidance given to Ministers on how to respond to Select Committee reports is unchanged from that issued in 1990, when the hon. Member for Worthing, West was a member of the Government.
Mr. Davey: The guidance may not have been changed, but the House is trying to get to the bottom of a serious matter. The right hon. Lady's Government tell the House time and again that they are in favour of open government. I would have thought that, in that spirit, she would ensure that the information is made available to the house.
Shona MeIsaac: The report on Sierra Leone was agreed to by the Committee on 3 February and published on 9 February. This briefing took place during that period. The hon. Gentleman will notice that, although paragraph 8 of the report relates to some of the other leaks, it states:
"although improper, they do not raise questions of privilege".
The question of privilege is raised only at the draft stage—not when a report has been agreed.
Mr. Davey: We seem to be getting to a case of angels on a pinhead. The hon. Lady is making a point similar to that made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) when he gave his interpretation of the report. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Committee on a very strong report which does not pull any punches, although I do not necessarily agree with his interpretation of what the report is trying to convey.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davey: No; I want to make some progress.
42
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that he and his Committee were not criticising the Foreign Secretary, but they got dangerously close to doing so. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard) said, it seems rather odd that a senior Minister receiving a leaked report from a Select Committee should not have instinctively understood that something was wrong, and known that he should not have received it and that he should declare doing so immediately.
Receiving a leak of a Select Committee report is almost tantamount to receiving stolen goods. We should be expecting a very high standard of behaviour among Ministers. We should be assured that their instincts—their understanding of our process and our culture—are such that they abide by the highest of standards in reacting to what was clearly a wrong act by an hon. Member, to which he has admitted. The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues on the Labour Benches are only making the issue worse. My advice is that they should stop digging.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As someone who has been in this place for 37 years, may I rather cynically say that the hon. Gentleman ought to understand that one of the less attractive features of the House of Commons is that there is one law that applies to Back Benchers and another law that tends to apply to senior Ministers? I find that attitude profoundly distasteful.
Mr. Davey: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I think that many people around the House share his concerns.
Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davey: No. I have given way an awful lot, so I intend to continue.
Other serious questions have been raised in the debate. The Select Committee report asks the Prime Minister to amend the ministerial code. When the Leader of the House intervened on the right hon. Member for North-West hampshire (Sir G. Young), she said that the ministerial code was being reviewed, but that does not mean that it will be changed. It does not mean that the Government have accepted the proposal in the Select Committee report. The Leader of the House did not give us a timetable for the review, or any idea of when the House would have its conclusions. I hope that the status of that review will be clarified.
The report raises wider issues about the way that the Government govern and the way that Ministers and the press operation treat Parliament. Through that, it impinges on how the House protects the Select Committee system. It is a key part of our democracy to ensure that that Select Committee system is independent and has full integrity, so that we can hold the Government of the day to account.
Leaks, such as that which happened from the Foreign Affairs Committee, can damage the Committee system. They damage the Committee in the public's eyes, thereby detracting from the report's authority. They can damage the trust between Committee members and the efficiency of a Committee's workings, and thereby damage Parliament's ability to hold the Executive to account.
Therefore, I submit that the Government should be looking at not just these Committee recommendations, but the need to review and strengthen the Select Committee

43
system—and how we might make members of Select Committees more independent of their party. Select Committee members should be responsible to the House irrespective of party labels. Perhaps we should consider developing career paths within the Committees of the house, so that people can see their way to developing their political careers, not just within their party, but within Parliament.
We should consider making positions on Select Committees more prestigious. The prestige of those senior positions should equal that of a junior Minister, so that people who hold them take the independence of the work that they do very seriously indeed.
The report is about upholding the integrity of the Select Committee system. A stiff penalty has been served on the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and I believe that all hon. Members will accept his full apology. However, to ensure that the integrity of the Committee system is maintained in future, more than the ministerial code needs to be changed. We need a clearer definition of the responsibilities of civil servants to Select Committees.
I do not know whether there is a code governing the relationships between civil servants and Select Committee members, but some of our exchanges today have shown that there is an urgent need for such a code, to ensure that the civil—
Mr. Levitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. Obviously, we need not bother with the Standards and Privileges Committee in future—it will be enough to have the hon. Gentleman investigating. He seems to have a gut instinct for determining what is right without bothering with the evidence. On this occasion, if he looks at the minutes of evidence, he will see the Civil Service and the Foreign Office responding in exactly the way that he asks. That is one of the benefits of the report—a report which, I believe, does correctly attribute blame. I speak as one who spent many hours serving on that Committee, investigating the matter in great detail.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman's comments are rather rash. I began my speech by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and his colleagues—including the hon. Gentleman—for the quality of the report. However, I must say that, after what we have heard today, obviously that appendix is not exactly complete and we need more information to ensure that the valuable work that the Committee did is fully finished.
There is a need for a new code of behaviour for civil servants and Select Committees. There have been other debates about the duties of civil servants and whether they are confined to the Government of the day or whether they extend to the wider public and Members of this place. As we dig down into the details of this affair, it is clear that we need to be sure that civil servants will work for the House without prejudicing their position in working for Ministers. There needs to be a much clearer definition of those responsibilities.
4.50 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: As the Member who first raised the question of a possible leak of this Foreign Affairs Select Committee document, I am grateful to you,
44
Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to contribute to the debate. When I raised my concerns on a point of order on 9 February, it did not cross my mind that they would expose something so serious. In a way, I am pleased that they have; in a way, I am sorry. I am pleased because my concerns have exposed an abuse of Parliament by a colleague and by the Government. I am pleased also that the House has been enabled to reassert some crucial rights and privileges at a time when they are being undermined day by day by the Government. I am sorry, however, because of the personal difficulties that this matter has caused a colleague, albeit one from a different party. He is a colleague with whom I have enjoyed working and come to respect.
The report from the Standards and Privileges Committee raises two vital matters. These are the conduct expected of us as Members and the conduct expected of Her Majesty's Government. Like others, I want to say little about the first matter, which is the conduct expected of us all. The report makes it crystal clear that what happened was wrong and worthy of punishment. I fail to see how any of us could disagree with that conclusion. However, there is a redeeming feature in this aspect of this sorry affair. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) swiftly admitted his actions. He did not hesitate to agree that they were wrong, he promptly offered the Committee a fulsome apology and he immediately resigned. Once the report that we are debating is behind us, I believe that we should draw a line in the sand regarding the hon. Gentleman's conduct.
However, I do not consider that the report closes the issue of the Government's conduct. In my opinion, and as we have heard the argument developed this afternoon, the report requires us to pursue matters more vigorously. The contrast between the response of the hon. Member for Dundee, West and that of the Foreign Secretary could not be more stark. Nowhere do I see any apology from the Foreign Secretary or from his permanent secretary for keeping, circulating and using a leaked document.
Instead of an apology, the Foreign Secretary contents himself with offering us weasel words in an attempt to justify his behaviour. He claims that the lack of clarity in existing rules entitled him to ignore the words "Confidential—For Committee Use Only", which appear in large letters at the top of each page of the leaked document. That is a pathetic attempt to wriggle out of his proper responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests also that a Foreign Secretary can sneak into the private meetings of Select Committees and listen to confidential discussions. That is the most stupid defence of wrong-doing that I have ever heard. If there was no sense of wrong-doing in the Foreign Secretary or the Foreign Office, why did officials react with alarm and concern when they saw the leaked document? Why were documents destroyed rather than returned? I mention return because the report says that documents should be returned. As late as lunchtime today, not one page of one copy of the leaked document has ever been returned to the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
In his evidence the Foreign Secretary claimed that no use was made of the leaked document. However, I raised my original point of order because someone was patently using information that could have come only from a leak,

45
in an attempt to rubbish our Committee and our conclusions before a single official copy had been handed to anyone.
The evidence given to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges by the Permanent Secretary is not much better. It amazes me that diplomats who provide what the Permanent Secretary described to the Foreign Affairs Committee as a Rolls-Royce service require a memo to be circulated before they realise that receiving leaked documents, circulating them, using them, keeping them and failing to return them is plain wrong. I cannot comprehend why they need a memo to tell them that.
There is one thing about the evidence from the officials that does not surprise me. It does not surprise me to read in the report that they cannot remember when the leaked document arrived, they do not know how many copies were made, and they are not sure why they took weeks to tell the Foreign Secretary. Such a shambles led to the Sierra Leone report itself. The shambles revealed this afternoon led the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), to issue a stout and utterly convincing defence of himself against more shambles from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Mr. David heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he leaves the subject of the evidence from the permanent secretary, has he read the evidence on page 17 of the report in answer to the questions from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)? There the permanent secretary seems to be advancing the proposition that Select Committees should not concern themselves with the way in which a Department has handled affairs of state, only with what it might do in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an extraordinary position for a permanent secretary to adopt?
Mr. Wilshire: It may seem extraordinary to some people, but after my experience of the Sierra Leone inquiry, nothing surprises me about the conduct, attitudes and comments of officials in the FCO. In principle, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but on the specific point, I am amazed that he is amazed.
The eighth report raises another issue that the House needs to address—the role of the Prime Minister in this shabby episode. When he came to office in 1997, the Prime Minister made much of his changes to the ministerial code. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard) made exactly this point. After much trumpeting of moral virtue, what a pity that the Prime Minister overlooked the simple matter of leaked documents when he made his changes. What a pity that he waited for the report before making any further changes. The facts were clear and were admitted in February. It is now July, yet the Prime Minister has done nothing.
On numerous occasions, the Prime Minister promised the nation that he would dismiss erring Ministers. Given the clear evidence in the report of wrong-doing by the Foreign Secretary and by officials, when will the Prime Minister sack the Foreign Secretary?
As the report makes clear, the shortcomings revealed by the episode go right to the top. The House must not allow itself to be stopped in its tracks simply by making
46
the hon. Member for Dundee, West a scapegoat. The House must demand this afternoon an unconditional and immediate apology from the Foreign Secretary, and must insist that the Prime Minister belatedly takes action, and does not merely carry out a review.
The report reminds me of three things. First, among any group of 659 human beings, weakness will always rear its ugly head from time to time. We wish that it would not, but we know that it will. Secondly, individual Members of Parliament can still act honourably, even when their conduct falls below the standard that our constituents are entitled to expect of us. Thirdly, the Government's conduct is all too often disgraceful. The report makes it crystal clear that the behaviour within the Foreign Office was not an abberation; it was entirely within the approach to the government of the country adopted by new Labour.
I believe that the Foreign Secretary should be in the dock this afternoon alongside the hon. Member for Dundee, West. Although the hon. Gentleman had the decency to own up instantly, to apologise and to resign, the fact that the Foreign Secretary has still done none of those tells the nation a great deal about the Government.
5 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I genuinely had not intended to speak this afternoon, but I have been listening intently to the speeches and this is one of those occasions on which speeches are important and possibly make a difference.
Let me say first that I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) behaved in a very dignified way. My heart goes out to him, because, as one or two hon. Members may recollect, 32 years ago I was in a not dissimilar position having fallen foul of the Committee of Privileges in relation to a visit of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to Porton Down. I was hauled to the Bar of the House and the Speaker put on his black cap. Thankfully, that does not happen today, but it is a very unnerving and disagreeable experience to be hauled before the House of Commons in such a way. I can say only that my hon. Friend behaved with dignity and grace, and all credit to him.
I have one point to make. I have listened to the speeches, in particular those of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard). The speech of the former home Secretary was understandably complex and, without reading and re-reading it, one could not sensibly pass any kind of judgment on it, but, whatever one thinks of those speeches, my whole instinct is that this is a matter between Parliament and the Executive. It is of such importance that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary ought to come to the house, tomorrow or the day after, to answer the questions that have been raised.
For the sake of Parliament, this matter cannot be left in limbo. We cannot leave it at that because—however competent my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may be, and she is indeed competent—no Leader of the House is in a position to answer for the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office in such circumstances.
5.3 pm
Mr. David Davis: I commend the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, on his report. Given the evidence presented to him, it must have been extraordinarily difficult to bring it together, particularly as a unanimous report. I understand the problems of achieving that better than most. It must have been extremely awkward to have reached some of the conclusions in the report, but it was probably the only set of conclusions that the Committee could have reached. That fact alone will have implications for the future, and I shall elaborate on those in a moment.
I wish to focus on three issues: first, the point made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne about the importance of breaching Select Committee integrity; secondly, the issue that must have presented the most difficulty for the Committee—the credibility of the evidence presented to it, and the problems that that created; and, thirdly, what should be done about such matters in the future. I am thinking more about the Select Committee system and the privilege system than about the substance of the report.
How damaging has this matter been? Frankly, it has been extraordinarily damaging, simply because the problem that we face—and the problem for the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who, I agree, has behaved with great dignity—hits at the mechanics of how the Select Committee system works. Select Committees have no absolute power. Most of them cannot dismiss, punish, change policy or allocate money. They can do nothing except expose information to the public gaze, comment on policy and outcomes and, in the final analysis, embarrass the Executive. That is their only weapon, but it would be surprising if the Executive of any political persuasion accepted that embarrassment passively.
That is the leverage, and the breach that we are discussing hits at the fulcrum of that leverage. Once an Executive knows in detail about an upcoming report, it can do any number of things to destroy the report's effectiveness. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, my predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, knows, when a Committee produces 50 reports a year, the outcomes are known to the Government because they were there for the evidence sessions and know what happened. Moreover, there is a timetable for the publication of reports. As a result, the Public Accounts Committee, in extremis, is always susceptible.
I can give three examples that demonstrate what Governments, in general, can do. A year or two ago, the PAC produced a report on social security fraud. Unusually, the Government issued a Green Paper and made a statement to the House the week before in order to take away the report's impact. On another occasion, we issued a report on what was, at that point, the Government's fairly mixed performance on the millennium bug. The day before its publication, a very senior Minister went on television to talk about the good parts of the Government's work on the millennium bug, in an attempt to lessen the report's impact. On another occasion, an embarrassing report was due out on the Sunday and it was leaked on the Saturday.
48
There are dozens of other methods that Executives use. Select Committee Chairmen have to deal with them, and generally they do so without too much difficulty. However, the breach of a Select Committee's integrity by letting the Government know in advance what its report says allows the Executive any number of mechanisms for destroying the one lever that Select Committees have. If we leave such breaches unfettered, they will bankrupt our democracy. At present, Select Committees are the strongest check on the Executive that the House has. Clearly, therefore, this matter is of enormous importance. For that reason alone, I agree with the draconian penalty recommended by the Standards and Privileges Committee. If we do not take draconian action, we shall send out the wrong message.
I wish to turn now to a more detailed point—the credibility of the evidence presented to the Committee. Given the traditional procedures, the Committee had no choice but to come to the conclusion that it did. I do not agree with my hon. Friends who have disputed that. The house, however, has a separate duty to assess the evidence placed before it in the report. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about contradictory information from the Foreign Office, so I shall cite some of the evidence provided to illustrate to the House how much credibility we should give to it.
Paragraph 12 on page 6 of the report says:
"Mr Hood, Mr. Cook's political adviser, explained that he had come across the document by chance".
It is interesting that the document should have been come across by chance. Mr. Hood saw it as his duty to pull it out for himself, but,
"he had not alerted Mr. Cook to it straight away because there had been no opportunity to do so".
Mr. Hood is a special adviser—the political adviser to the Foreign Secretary—and the report is about the hottest issue of the day, and in the headlines at every turn. Mr. Hood was unable to find time to raise the matter with the Foreign Secretary for three weeks, although he admits in the evidence that he thought that he ought to have raised it with him at some point. For three weeks he did not find an opportunity to do so. I leave it to the House to judge the credibility of that point.
The report says that Mr. Hood
"had not thought it was wrong to retain the leaked draft but he knew it would have been wrong to have acted on it in any way."
He then said that he handed it to Mr. John Williams. Mr. Williams is not a policy wonk or someone who sits in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and deliberates at great length on the policy implications of reports; his job is to handle the media—media manipulation. He was previously the political editor of The Mirror, so surely he would not sit idly by, given such a hot potato to handle. He is, in effect, a political appointee in the news department.
According to the report:
"Mr. Williams, of the News Department, said that he was unaware that he should not have seen the leaked draft."
This man had been the political editor of The Mirror, but he was unaware that there was anything wrong in a Department having a leaked document of a Select Committee. The report says:

49
"He regretted that he had focused on it too narrowly as a matter of media strategy."
Shona McIsaac: To be fair to Mr. Williams, the evidence shows that he stated:
"I was obviously aware that if I said anything that depended on knowledge of that leak that would be wrong. I did not do so."
Mr. Davis: The fact of the matter is that Mr. Hood handed it to Mr. Williams. What did he think Mr. Williams was going to do with it? Think about it for three weeks? That is an untenable line, but I leave it to the House to make its own judgment.
First, a special adviser does not see the political significance of the report. Then, an ex-political editor does not know that it is a problem for a Select Committee report to be leaked to a Department. Then we come to Mr. Grant, Mr. Cook's private secretary. I am an ex-Foreign Office Minister, and hon. Members should understand what a private secretary is, because he is not someone who does the typing. He is a high-flying, highly qualified member of the Foreign Office who will almost certainly end up as an ambassador somewhere or, like Sir John Kerr, will become the permanent secretary of the Department—that is particularly true of the private secretary to the Foreign Secretary.
In the Foreign Office, one of the skills people are required to develop as a diplomat is political acuity and political antennae. According to the report, Mr. Grant said that
"he had not appreciated the status of the document".
He did not realise that it was important enough to give to the Foreign Secretary, despite the fact that the prospect of it was on the front pages of the newspapers, and it was potentially the most embarrassing matter facing the Foreign Office.
The report goes on to say of Mr. Grant:
"Likewise, he had not informed the Foreign Secretary about the earlier leak of the draft report on EU enlargement because there was nothing in the substance of the report which the Foreign Secretary needed to know."
That undermines his earlier argument. If there was something in the text of the report that the Foreign Secretary needed to know, he would have passed it on. I have heard many comments about how busy the Foreign Secretary was at that time. Foreign Secretaries are always busy. I have served two Foreign Secretaries, and I cannot think of a time when their special adviser, their politically appointed press officer—although we did not have such people—and their principal private secretary were unable to get to see them for three weeks.
My concern is that the Committee had no choice. When faced with evidence that had no obvious flaw in its internal logic, how could the Committee penetrate it? In future, the House should arm the Standards and Privileges Committee with rather heavier weapons.
Mrs. Beckett: I have just been trying to refresh my memory in regard to Mr. Hood's evidence to the Select Committee. Notwithstanding the summary given by the right hon. Gentleman on the basis of his experience as a junior Foreign Office Minister, Mr. Hood's evidence makes it clear that, at the time in question, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was dealing simultaneously with the hostage crisis in Yemen, with arrangements for
50
the Contact Group—he was trying to avert a war in the former Yugoslavia; Kosovo was also a problem—and with a number of other matters.
Mr. Hood said that one reason why he thought that the issue was not important enough to be drawn to the Foreign Secretary's attention immediately was the fact that he was entirely sure that there was nothing that the Foreign Office could or should do with the report. Does that not put Mr. Hood's evidence, and his decision, in a rather different context from that which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to portray?
Mr. Davis: On many occasions during the periods of office of the two Foreign Secretaries whom I served, crises arose at the same time. For instance, there have been Cyprus crises, Turkish crises and European Union crises, all at once. The right hon. Lady obviously does not realise that part of the task of a Foreign Secretary is to deal with such matters simultaneously. The Foreign Secretary has a broad reach, and there are plenty of times when he has half a dozen big issues on his plate. What is being proposed is implausible, at least in my judgment.
Sir Peter Emery: Is it not even more implausible, given that the Foreign Office is being referred to the Department of Trade and Industry in regard to a possible prosecution for an action that may have been taken by one of its officials? This is not something that happens every day; it is most unusual, and I should have thought that it was immensely important for it to be drawn to the Foreign Secretary's attention.
Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend's point is reinforced by the evidence of Sir John Kerr. He said that he did not understand the significance of the report, in parliamentary terms, because—I paraphrase—he was so shocked by the import for himself of the point raised by my right hon. Friend.
My argument, however, goes deeper than the point that the Leader of the House tried to pick up. How does the Standards and Privileges Committee test evidence such as this? It has no access to the necessary judicial procedures. The evidence should be taken on oath, separately, and probably in closed session, so that people cannot collude. That is what should be done if such a problem arises in the future.
Another problem relates to the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He or she can investigate infractions of standards in great detail—if any of us are accused of such infractions, he or she can have access to our bank accounts and to a number of other sources of evidence—but I understand that that does not apply to issues of privilege. That gives rise to two points, one of which was raised some months ago by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
First, the ministerial code is, in effect, outside the powers of the house. It is adjudicated by the Government—by the Prime Minister, in the final analysis. That is wrong: it puts the Prime Minister in an impossible position. He must deal with political dimensions at the same time as dealing with natural justice dimensions, and he must simultaneously deal with the integrity of the Government. That is an impossible demand within the context of government. The ministerial code should be policed by the house, at least in the first instance.

51
The second point relates to the fact that we have to rely on the Department itself for the evidence. Some months ago, in a debate in the house, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned the idea of a parliamentary investigating facility. We should not have to rely on the report of an ex-civil servant, which we are told is impartial; we should be able to rely on a parliamentary officer, who should have absolute access in the same way as the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Committee could then reach a judgment that it could be authoritatively sure was based solely on hard facts, rather than on a defensive line put up by the Government.
5.19 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has introduced the question of whether, on privileges issues, there should be an investigating officer for the House, whose report could be made available to the Committee before the Committee comes to its conclusions and puts its own report and recommendations to the House. That is an interesting idea. There may be other occasions when it can be discussed. I am not sure that it is an issue that should be settled in the eighth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.
I thank the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for the way in which he introduced the report; he did so very fairly. He said that there were two forms of unanimity, and the first form rightly applied to the Committee. It is not to make a point about any other Committee, but simply to point out that there was nothing of particular difficulty in reaching conclusions on the matter. The most important conclusion that we reached was in the interim response to the Speaker, which said that Members who had received material that they should not have received should return it straight away. That is clear. It is good English. It is good practice. I hope that it will be followed.
I hope that the next thing that I say will not be seen as a contradiction. The report does not deal with material that is wrongly leaked to the press. One of the first things that happened when I joined the House was that a Committee of the House recommended that either the editor or a journalist from The Economist should be punished, having printed something that they had wrongly received. With rare exceptions, which I cannot contemplate at the moment, I do not believe that the House should be in the business of trying to punish journalists for doing their job, which is to make available to all what is known to a few.
As I understand it, the Foreign Affairs Committee looked seriously at the issue on the basis that it was a leak to a Department whose actions were being considered by the Select Committee. Publication in a newspaper may have come about because of a bad act, but, once something has been published, it is open to all to see at the same time; it is not just for the privileged. It may be designed to undermine the proceedings of a Select Committee, but it has been done differently and more openly. That is not to justify a Member going to the press, but to try to draw a distinction. It is worth spelling out that we are not trying to muzzle the press, even if it obtains material following an action that cannot be justified.
52
That debate needs to take place on another occasion. A fair number of reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee are not usually debated because they do not recommend action by the house, yet some of those reports are as significant as the ones that recommend an action by an hon. Member or the House itself.
On another occasion, it would be useful to go into what I regard as some of the misconceptions in today's article by Peter Riddell in The Times, which seems to bring together a number of issues that should not properly be brought together in that way. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for haltemprice and howden said, in this case, the commissioner does not come into the eighth report, so I will not waste the house's time by following up some of the different views that Peter Riddell could have mentioned.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard), the former home Secretary, has made a strong case. The whole House will be grateful for the way in which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken.
Had I worked rather more seriously at university, I should probably have joined the civil service, like my brother, father and grandfather, so I have more of a public than a political service background. We could possibly build too much on those two words "full briefing" in the letter from the Foreign Secretary. It would have been interesting to have heard from the official concerned. It would be interesting to see the report that he circulated in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If the Leader of the House does not disclose it this afternoon, I am sure that one Committee or another will obtain it. I do not regard it as the sort of paper that the civil service or Ministers can keep secret, and I see no reason why they should.
In one of the parliamentary answers that I was most pleased with when I was a Minister—I cannot say proud—I got two sentences into one line of one column of Hansard:
"I made a mistake. I apologise."—[Official Report, 2 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 84.]
As a Minister, it is not very difficult to say that, especially if it is true. The Leader of the House says that Ministers in the previous Government did not always abide by conventions or guidance in responding to Select Committee reports—that is the standard response that one expects from the present Government. Ministers keep reminding us that the previous Government were never perfect, but they seldom confess to any mistakes of their own; they seldom come here to say that they are sorry. The right hon. Lady should institute a review, perhaps by an outside person, to see how many times the present Government have managed to get publicity that responds instantly, in an adversarial way, to a Select Committee report on the day it is published, or on the days before.
A bad trend has been set. However, the Government—who, understandably, consider the next day's newspaper headlines to be a very significant part of the parliamentary process—should understand that responding in that manner to Select Committee reports contradicts the parliamentary process. They should read those reports, consider them and allow them to be published so that other people, too, may read them.
On the day on which the Committee's ninth report was published, reports on Teletext stated that "So-and-so was cleared", whereas anyone who had read that report would

53
realise that that statement was not so much relevant as part of a briefing to ensure that the report itself—to which many civil servants had given much time—would be obscured.
If we demand that civil servants should be able to justify every adjective, noun and comma used in every piece of paper that they circulate in their Departments, in briefings to Ministers or for ministerial statements to the house, the civil service machine will only work more slowly and less effectively. When it is discovered that an inaccurate statement has been made, it would be much better for Ministers to state that in a parliamentary answer and to spell out the facts.
Openness is very important for democracy. If there were slightly less pride, arrogance and control, the relationship between Parliament and the Government would work better. It is more becoming for hon. Members, even Labour Members, to say to Ministers, "Try to tell us what you have got wrong as well as what you have got right. Try to give us the information that we should have, so that we are able to judge whether your action is fully or only partly justifiable."
5.27 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I shall be fairly brief, but, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, there are two matters that I should like to draw to the attention of the house, and one matter that I ask the House to consider.
First, the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) made an absolutely frank statement to the Select Committee before any Committee member knew anything about what had really happened, and he submitted his resignation to the Chairman immediately before he spoke. He behaved entirely honourably in Committee about the mistake that he had made. That should be to his credit, and that credit should be given not only by Labour Members, but by an Opposition Member. I am very willing so to do.
Secondly, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on his speech, in which he outlined a great deal about the Foreign Secretary's position—a matter to which I shall return in a moment.
Page xv, paragraph 2, of the report states:
"On the day before publication the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy henderson, the head of the FCO Parliamentary Relations Department".
As a Committee member, I had no knowledge of that fact, which the Chairman had not mentioned. That paragraph in the report was the first instance on which it was drawn to my attention.
Today, we have had a very important statement from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee; it was right that that statement was made. I have no reason to disbelieve any of that statement. The hon. Gentleman has behaved quite honourably in all of his dealings with the Committee. It is therefore imperative that the Foreign Office—which seems to be trying to drag him into the matter by the statement on page xv—should support the hon. Gentleman's statement by making it absolutely clear that no use was made of
"either the draft or the additional information from Mr. Anderson or Mr. Ross"—
54
which Andy Henderson himself minuted and said that he circulated in briefing the press. I am sorry, but what the devil were those people up to? What was the publicity department doing? Those people are there to defend the Secretary of State. The idea that any information that they had would not be used for the benefit of the Department is nonsensical. If we believe that, we believe in "Alice in Wonderland".
Rather than retaining any doubt or criticism of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Foreign Office is obliged to make public the minute by Mr. Andy Henderson, so the matter can be cleared up and the Chairman can proceed, knowing that his statement to the House is complete.
We have criticised the Foreign Secretary for not apologising to the house, and we have heard the Leader of the House say that no Foreign Secretary had made more papers available to the Committee ever before. Yes—but, by Jove, they had to be forced out of him. They did not come willingly. They had to be dragged out like bad teeth. One of the witnesses whom we wished to see was refused, and we never saw that witness. The concept that there was great openness from the Foreign Secretary is a slight myth, and the response from members of the Foreign Affairs Committee shows that they are not willing to run against my views.
Mr. Wilshire: Given what my right hon. Friend has just said, how does he rate our chances of seeing the minute to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred?
Sir Peter Emery: If I have anything to do with it, it will be a 100 per cent. chance. If the Foreign Office has anything to do with it, it will be a 0 per cent. chance. It will not be done willingly—it will have to be dragged out of the Foreign Office yet again.
I have always wanted to believe that the Foreign Office was one of the leading Departments. I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary there for three years, so perhaps I am slightly influenced. Of course, that was a hell of a long time ago—from 1961 to 1963, before most Members sitting in the Chamber today were in the house. Since then, and under any Government, the Department has had a high reputation, as have its Secretaries of State.
The report has left a nasty taste with members of the Select Committee. Real honour was not one of the thoughts being considered in the way in which the Department dealt with the Committee. Nor did the Foreign Office do anything other than try at every moment to hide anything that it could possibly keep from the Committee's inquiry. There is the unpleasantness.
The Foreign Secretary has not come here to apologise. The strange thing about this House is that if one comes to apologise, the House is forgiving. When one does not and one is wrong, we want to find out why. The Foreign Secretary has not apologised, and he is wrong. It is right that we ensure that we continue with the closest examination of him and the Department while he is still Foreign Secretary.
5.34 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I have been in the House for 35 years, and

55
like so many right hon. and hon. Members here today, I have been a member of the Executive, but have also spent substantial time on the Back Benches. We tend not to be overblown about the importance of our work, which the press often accuse us of, but all too often to overlook it. That has been apparent to some extent today.
It is salutary to think that we are the mother of parliaments, but the average person's sole involvement in the parliamentary process, in 80 years of life, will be to have cast 20 votes. That is democracy, but democracy in the meaningful sense of the accountability of the Executive exists only in Parliament. That is why we are here today protecting the rights of our Committee.
Setting aside the politicking that always goes on in the House—we have been in opposition for long spells and fully understand the frustrations of Opposition Members—the most important thing to emerge from the report is that we have at last found a way of closing the channels. Leaks are only as important as the distance that they can get. If we can stop the movement of documents, we go a long way towards ending the problem of leaks to Ministers, and I think that the report achieves that.
I argued that it was not enough to call only the three officials, and that to call the permanent secretary would send a message throughout Whitehall. It did: within hours, Whitehall was responding. The permanent secretary brought us a message telling us that, even though he had been in the civil service for 33 years, he did not know that it was a breach of parliamentary privilege to handle leaked documents, but that from that day on, it would be treated as a disciplinary matter for any civil servant to handle documents other than to return them to the Committee.
That was important not only in imposing a discipline, but because of the career effect of that discipline. We underlined that by saying that the Committee would treat it as an act of contempt of Parliament for any civil servant to conspire to further the leak of a document. That is a major breakthrough for the legislature, and for that reason, if for no other, the report is extremely important.
5.38 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I join those who have thanked the Standards and Privileges Committee for its work and for the report. I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who put his finger, in a few measured words, on the nub of what these proceedings should be about. His speech and the equally measured contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) were in line with the measured tone of the report, although one might not have thought so from some of what has been said.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made it clear that the report did not criticise my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and that before this incident, there was no guidance on what a Minister should do should he or his civil servants receive a leaked Select Committee document, but he also made it clear that to handle such a document would now be regarded as a contempt of the house.
56
It was clear from the debate that many thought the report too measured, including the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard). He criticised the Committee, not only implicitly but explicitly, for not having gone further.
In this debate, the Committee's report has been stretched to breaking point, if not beyond. It was the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe who said that the report described a systematic attempt by the Government to suborn the Select Committee system. He said that the Foreign Secretary should be forced to come to the House to answer questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) indicated that he had not wholly taken in the detail of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but thought that the tone of his contribution was so grave that there was something in that argument. I cannot agree either with the right hon. and learned Gentleman or my hon. Friend, and I take this opportunity to explain that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Edinburgh at a most important meeting with the Brazilian Foreign Minister. Relations with Brazil, as all right hon. and hon. Members know, are of considerable importance to this Government and this country, and that is why my right hon. Friend is not able to be present in the Chamber this evening.
Mr. Howard: First, is the right hon. Lady suggesting that it is beyond the wit of the business managers to have scheduled this debate for an occasion on which the Foreign Secretary was in London, as he is from time to time? Secondly, what would she have done if she had received a leaked copy of a report from a Select Committee?
Mrs. Beckett: This report is not about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee made plain. The timing of the debate was geared to providing, as speedily as we reasonably could, an opportunity to debate the report and the unfortunate issue of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who was criticised in the report and whose suspension was proposed by it. That was the main consideration behind the timing of the debate, and properly so.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe was strong in his criticisms, but not as strong as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who called on the Prime Minister to sack the Foreign Secretary and was also critical of the Prime Minister himself, as if the affair in some way involved him, which of course it does not. Therefore, it is right to remind the house, if only briefly, that the Government in no way, shape or form were the originator of the leak, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West made clear; that the Government made no use whatever of the leak, as has been made crystal clear—indeed, no hon. Member has even tried to allege that; and that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said in his capacity as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Government made no attempt, once they were in receipt of the leaked document, to use it to influence the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Lady is making much play of what the Government did not do, but can she tell

57
the House why the Government have still not returned a single sheet of a single copy of the leaked document to the Clerk of the Committee?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I cannot. Indeed, I was not aware of that point, but there may be a simple explanation for it and I am sure that it will be made available to the hon. Gentleman.
Shona McIsaac: My right hon. Friend may not have noticed, because it is only a tiny part of the minutes of evidence, but one official is quoted as saying that the documents ended up in the shredder.
Mrs. Beckett: That unworthy thought had crossed my mind and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the matter clear.
In the course of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) understandably raised the issue of the interpretation that has been put on the briefing meeting he had—perfectly properly—with an incoming senior official in the Foreign Office, and how that has been reported.
In that context, there has also been some reference to my earlier intervention, in which I pointed out that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had made available to the Select Committee information that was unprecedentedly full. Some play was made, by Liberal Democrat Members, by the hon. Member for Spelthorne and by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)—whose constituency is one that, since the last round of Boundary Commission changes, I fear that I have increasing difficulty in remembering—about the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not rush forward, with a glad and eager heart, to offer access to any and every paper and telegram in the Foreign Office.
I do not consider that surprising in any way, shape or form. Indeed, my right hon. Friend would have been lacking in his duty if he had not thought that he ought to weigh very carefully what was certainly a very major precedent—some would call it a dangerous precedent—in terms of the information that he made available to the Select Committee.
In dialogue with each other, hon. Members then expressed confidence that the minute produced by Mr. Henderson after the briefing from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East would have to be dragged out of the Foreign Office. That was intended to illustrate the lack of openness of the Foreign Secretary.
However, I have to disappoint those hon. Members. While we have been listening with eager attention to their observations, I have received a message from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which he states that he is entirely willing for that document to be released to the house. The document will, indeed, be made available.
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the Leader of the House on her success in getting documents released. It is much greater than that achieved by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
However, I remind the right hon. Lady of a recommendation made by the Select Committee on Procedure way back in the 1990–91 Session. It was that it was beholden on Departments to make certain that they
58
made available to a Select Committee all documentation relevant to an inquiry being held by that Select Committee. The recommendation was made as a result of a Select Committee inquiry into Concorde, when the fact that not all the necessary documentation was made available to that Committee was referred to the Procedure Committee.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the investigation into the Concorde affair was held a considerable period of years ago. Nevertheless, although all Governments seek to provide Select Committees with the right information, some documents are held to be of such sensitivity that they should remain confidential within government. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have confirmed that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary released unprecedented information.
I shall conclude with one of the earliest points made in this short, but stretching debate. Although no supporting evidence was produced, some Conservative Members stated that the alleged behaviour was typical of the Government's misuse of the house. The shadow Leader of the House prayed in aid of that argument the Government's use of the Government information service, the number of special advisers, and so on.
However, the allegations about the use of the information service have been repeatedly and clearly refuted. As to the special advisers, the Government considered that, as a matter of professionalism, it was right to employ more than were employed by the previous Administration, at least at the end of their term of office. We have also thought it right, again as a matter of professionalism, to treble the money made available to Opposition parties in the house, in order that they may more adequately carry out their duties. I have not noticed any acknowledgement that that rather runs counter to the suggestion that the Government in some way are trying to misuse and abuse Parliament.
My final point is to quote from the conventions for Governments responding to Select Committee reports. Those were drafted as long ago as 1990 and were set out in a letter from the then President of the Council, who I think was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee. The passage that is particularly germane to this debate is that the document
"asserted the right of Ministers to respond publicly to criticisms of the Government as robustly as seemed appropriate; this would include criticisms in the Committee's Report itself, inaccuracy or mis-statement in media reporting, or public criticisms made by individual Committee members".
The advice continued:
"Ministers would feel free to respond immediately to recommendations",
where that was thought necessary.
Despite much that has been said in this debate, frankly, the substance of the complaints made by the Opposition are not borne out by the weight of the evidence on which they rest. This is a sufficiently serious and worrying matter in itself.
Like many other members who have spoken in the debate, I recognise the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West has done in the House and on foreign affairs, and I regret the circumstances that led to

59
his suspension from the house, although of course I respect the judgment of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, as do we all.
I fear that in an attempt to exploit a measured and sensible report, which warns us all about the proper respect for the work of Select Committees and clearly warns Government Departments and civil servants about future conduct, an attempt has been made to erect an edifice of criticism of the Government, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, which is not borne out. Frankly, the evidence will not bear it.
60
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
JANE KENNEDY and MR. KEVIN HUGHES were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, MADAM SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Resolved,
That this House—
(i) approves the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 607); and
(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Ernie Ross, Member for Dundee West, from the service of the House for ten sitting days.

ESTIMATES DAY
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES 1999–2000
    Class I, Vote 4

      School Inspections
      [Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, on The Work of Ofsted, HC 62-I; Department for Education and Employment and Office for Standards in Education Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2000–01, (Cm 4202.)]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a further sum not exceeding £59,500,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England on administration and inspection, including the inspection of schools and other educational institutions, funded nursery providers and local education authorities—[Jane Kennedy.]
      5.54 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Wicks: We move rapidly from Sierra Leone to Ofsted—one of these subjects is controversial.
      As Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment I am pleased to report to the House on our inquiry into Ofsted. On 14 June, we published a unanimous report following a 10-month inquiry. We heard extensive evidence. We received written evidence and heard oral evidence and—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but far too many conversations are going on. This is an important debate.
      Mr. Wicks: We heard oral evidence from many people, including union and professional associations, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in England, and the Minister for School Standards. For comparative purposes, we also heard evidence from the chief inspector of further education and Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales. Obviously, we are grateful to all our witnesses.
      Many members of the Committee and our staff also had the opportunity to visit schools that were undergoing an inspection. I suppose that, on occasion, that created a slightly comic spectacle. I was in a class in a school in greater London where the Ofsted inspector was inspecting the teacher, Her Majesty's inspector was observing the Ofsted inspector and I, as Chairman of the Select Committee, was observing everyone, I suppose. In practice, it was a most valuable facility and we are grateful for it. I thank all those who helped us with our inquiry, in particular the chief inspector of the Office for Standards in Education and his staff.
      Interestingly, Parliament first granted public funds to schools in 1833 and inspection followed quickly thereafter, in 1839. There has more or less always been a link between state education and the inspection of schools. By the 1960s, there were about 500 HMIs.
      62
      Ofsted was established under the previous Government by the Education (Schools) Act 1992. The office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools was then created. Although we focused chiefly in our report on schools inspection, and I will mainly focus on that today, HMCI also has responsibility for inspecting local education authorities, initial and in-service teacher training, nursery education, youth services and further education provided by local education authorities. I understand that the Government will shortly be extending the powers of the chief inspector.
      Ofsted was created by the previous Government as part of a drive to raise education standards. Other developments of the time were the national curriculum, national testing and the publication of school results. We can see the work of Ofsted in the context of education standards, but also perhaps in terms of the "audit society", as some people have described it. The provision of information to parents is crucial, but we see the growth of regulation and inspectorates in other areas of public policy. For example, there are developments in social services and health—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is an interesting example of that. It is all about consumer perspectives and the accountability of public services.
      The main emphasis that I want to bring to the debate is that the Committee fully endorses the principle of external inspection of our schools and other education institutions. That is a most important conclusion in the report.
      Schools are inspected by teams, which are led by a registered inspector. The contracts are awarded by Ofsted. Inspection takes place within a framework that is drawn up by Ofsted. We found when taking evidence that the framework was widely praised. For example, Professor Michael Barber, who now heads the Department's standards effectiveness unit, says that it was
      "very strongly based on education research, school effectiveness and school improvement".
      It is also interesting that the National Union of Teachers found that the framework provided
      "a valuable check list for school improvement, not least for schools to use themselves".
      There is thus much support for the framework.
      We questioned two aspects of the framework and made recommendations, one of which related to special schools. We noted that more special schools than other schools are judged to be under-performing, and made comments and recommendations accordingly. In particular, we said:
      "Given the importance of this issue, we recommend that Ofsted keep under review the way in which the Framework is used in the inspection of special schools. We also recommend that the DfEE keep under review the way the National Curriculum is applied in special schools."
      We also made comments about pupil mobility and the need for Ofsted to take more account of that when making judgments about inspection. Clearly, if there is a great deal of pupil mobility, as there is in many of our schools, that will inevitably affect school performance, and Ofsted must keep that under review.
      In general, we recognise that any inspection can be stressful—we have just been discussing the inspection of MPs—but the majority of schools found inspection teams professional and courteous. Undoubtedly, however, there

      63
      is stress. Many of our witnesses highlighted the negative impact of inspections on teachers. For example, the report states:
      "A GP wrote to us highlighting the 'significant symptoms of stress' suffered by three teachers at a local primary school, which were directly related to an impending inspection in the second cycle of inspections. The GP noted that this had happened despite the fact that the school had performed 'extremely well' in its inspection."
      When we considered reform, we examined particularly critically the period of notice that a school can be given. In the past, some schools have known that they are to be inspected two terms ahead of the inspection. We believe that such notice had a distorting impact on the school and its work. We note that, following consultation, Ofsted is considering giving notice of between six and 10 weeks, but the Committee feels that four weeks would be more appropriate.
      We recognise the argument that if a longer period of notice is given, much good work can be done within the school as it prepares for the inspection, and that the period of notice, rather than the inspection, may be what has a good impact on the school. However, we believe that now that there is a history of inspections, and schools are used to them, four weeks' notice is about right. That may reassure parents that a school stands more chance of being inspected as it is on a normal day.
      We believe also that there is a role for snap inspections, not as an alternative to ordinary inspections, but a complementary process. Snap inspections would be carried out not by the mainstream Ofsted teams, but by Her Majesty's inspectors or local education authorities.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: Do the hon. Gentleman and his Committee view snap inspections as one way to tackle the problem of over-preparation, which is referred to in a different part of the report, in that schools get keyed up about an inspection because they know that it is coming, but if the inspection is done on a spot basis, that problem does not arise?
      Mr. Wicks: That could be one use for snap inspections. If, for example, the Secretary of State wanted a snap look at a particular subject or issue, such inspections could be used. We also had in mind the concern of parents with children at a particular school or in a particular area about problems such as school bullying. They might be worried that the school's regime was allowing pupils to get away with bullying. There is no point in inspectors telling the bullies and the teachers, "We shall be coming in eight weeks." They should turn up on a Monday morning and have a look. There is, therefore, a role for the snap inspection.
      Alongside our proposal for a period of notice of only four weeks, we made recommendations to end the paper chase. At the moment, many schools over-prepare documentation for the inspection. That is only human, and one can understand that. We were struck, however, by one example of a school that had prepared so much documentation that it filled six large boxes and the registered inspector had to hire a man with a small van to cart it away. We never found out where he carted it off to, but we hope that it was recycled. We therefore recommend that Ofsted or the Department draw up a good practice guide—that will hopefully be a short document—to enable schools to end this devastation of our forests.
      64
      We believe that there should be a greater sense of ownership by schools of the inspection process. We want schools to view inspection as a valuable mechanism, not an external threat. We therefore suggested that it would be helpful if a school governing body were able to have an observer—not a member—on the Ofsted team that is inspecting the school.
      I stress again that the evidence demonstrates that, in the great majority of cases, inspections are conducted in a fit and proper manner; and the inspectors are, in the main, courteous and professional in their dealings with pupils, staff, parents and governors. However, there are exceptions. We hear, for example, of inspection teams sometimes claiming to have inspected classes where there is evidence that they did not enter those classes. Ofsted should therefore continue its efforts to deal with poor inspection practice.
      There is an issue to do with whether the inspection should be a clinical audit or whether it should develop into advice for schools. In considering that issue, we certainly welcomed the move towards greater feedback. In the school that I observed being inspected, I was impressed by the way in which inspectors would, whenever possible, give feedback to the teachers immediately after the lesson. We also observed feedback sessions with heads of department. All that is helpful, and we would encourage it. We want a process of professional dialogue, not clinical audit, to develop in Ofsted. Things are moving in the right direction.
      Some argue that self-evaluation could replace external inspection. The Committee does not agree. There is an important role for self-evaluation, but it should be complementary to external inspection. We therefore recommend that Ofsted should include an assessment of self-evaluation within schools. That would be helpful.
      We make recommendations about the membership of Ofsted teams. We heard a criticism that, too often, Ofsted teams are drawn from older members of the profession. That criticism can be exaggerated, but we certainly want to ensure that members of the Ofsted team have direct, current experience of teaching. We therefore recommend that more serving teachers and head teachers should be members of Ofsted teams. We would argue that if younger members of a team, who were teaching the literacy hour the week before the inspection, helped out for a few weeks a year as part of their professional development, they might be in a better position to judge the literacy hour during the school inspection. There are other arguments to support that recommendation.
      We are also interested in the role of the lay inspector. Every team has a non-teaching professional, and we thought that that was a useful development. We saw that policy in operation. However, we think that it would be a good idea if more of the lay inspectors were young parents with school-age children. There are many ways to judge a school, but if the team contained a mother or father who was asking the simple question, "Is this school good enough for my child?", that would bring some reality into the inspection system from the parental point of view.
      We considered the role of the Ofsted complaints adjudicator, which is clearly important. Currently, the complaints adjudicator is appointed by Ofsted. We do not believe that this is right; the appointment should be made elsewhere, either by the Secretary of State within the Department or by a board of commissioners for Ofsted—a recommendation to which I shall turn in a moment.

      65
      We also considered the accountability of Ofsted, which is important to the house. Ofsted is a non-ministerial Department, headed by Her Majesty's chief inspector. It is appointed by the Crown, and therefore has unique status in the education world. There are other non-ministerial Departments, but no clear analogies among them on reporting and accountability. We therefore conclude that
      "accountability mechanisms for Ofsted are not sufficiently robust".
      We recognise that the independence of Ofsted is crucial, but we do not think that that precludes effective and transparent accountability. We therefore recommend that there should be, among other things, a regular House of Commons debate on Her Majesty's chief inspector's annual report. In assessing education standards, that could be an important occasion for the house.
      We recommend to ourselves as a Select Committee that we should hold annual meetings with the chief inspector on both his annual report and, more generally, the work of Ofsted. We also suggest that, before the appointment or reappointment of the chief inspector is confirmed, the Select Committee should receive evidence from the nominee and report to Parliament. A debate on the Committee's report could then follow. We also discuss the need for a board of commissioners for Ofsted. We looked at the pros and cons of such a board, and conclude that a case for it should be considered very carefully.
      There was a sense in which we were reluctant to investigate the role of Her Majesty's chief inspector and his style because we were interested in policy and practice rather than personality, but to undertake work into Ofsted without saying something about Mr. Chris Woodhead would be rather like discussing the Victorian era without mentioning good Queen Victoria.
      As the report states,
      "The purpose of our inquiry has been to consider the work of Ofsted itself: the principle and practice of inspection. Based on the evidence we received, however, we realised that any such study would be difficult to divorce from the style adopted by Mr. Chris Woodhead".
      Several witnesses commented on it. We heard from critics of the chief inspector, although some witnesses took a much more supportive view of his style.
      It has not been possible for us to make a judgment about the successes or failures of Mr. Woodhead's style, although we note that when he came before us he defended it vigorously. He said:
      "It is very necessary … for messages that emerge from inspections to be communicated with absolute clarity to everybody who is interested in education. That, in a nutshell, is what I have tried to do. The issue of polemic; the issue of being excessively confrontational, I think is very much a matter of subjective judgment. I can only say to you that I think I have tried to speak plainly and, on occasion, bluntly and, on occasion, my attempts to do that have obviously provoked a pretty strong reaction".
      We found it difficult, as a Committee, to make a judgment on whether such a style was necessary, although we note that many are critical of it.
      We were concerned about the way Ofsted's work sometimes tended to focus on the negative. The day before we heard from the chief inspector, the annual report was published. The launch of the report was accompanied by a media focus on 15,000 failing teachers. We cross-examined Mr. Woodhead about that, and he told us that he knew no reason for such focus, given that the report was generally rather upbeat and optimistic. He
      66
      subsequently wrote to us—I think that it was the next day—to point out that, at the press conference to launch his annual report, Ofsted officials responded helpfully to "persistent requests" to provide the number of weak teachers.
      We are concerned not so much with looking back at the role of the chief inspector and his style but with pointing the way forward. Ofsted has been in existence for some time; we have a good deal of experience. We therefore feel that several principles should guide the chief inspector's work in future. First, the report states:
      "the role of the Chief Inspector should include encouraging the formation of a consensus about the importance of Ofsted's work across a wide field.
      Second. we support the view that HM Chief Inspector should, where appropriate, speak out on education issues."
      That obviously helps to stimulate a wider public debate. The major interests must be those of children and their parents, although, as the report says,
      "we feel strongly that such public expression of views should be based firmly on clear and scientific evidence emerging from inspections undertaken by Ofsted's inspectors and other reputable sources. There is a considerable danger that if this principle is not adhered to, the Chief Inspector will be seen simply as a pundit or polemicist".
      Thirdly, the report concludes:
      "in carrying out his or her role the Chief Inspector should be concerned to improve morale and promote confidence in the teaching profession. Hence the importance of fulfilling the role of Chief Inspector in a way that promotes wide acceptance of Ofsted's role and positive impact. We feel strongly that low morale among teachers inhibits the drive to raise standards".
      having—I hope—faithfully reported the Committee's conclusions, I must add that all of us in the House recognise the vital importance of education and the need to improve standards. The Committee recommends, as I suspect most of us present would, that external inspection of schools is vital. That should not be controversial. However, there is a strong case for reform, and our report presents arguments for it. We look forward in due course to the Government's full response to our report.
      In practice, inspections are usually professional and well regarded. The great majority of our teachers undertake their work, often in very arduous circumstances, in the most professional way. Alongside such day-to-day work, however, there has been an over-excited public debate about Ofsted's role. Such over-excitement damages parents and children. We must pull down the Berlin wall that sometimes seems to separate Ofsted and teachers' representatives. That is the challenge for both the chief inspector and professional organisations.
      6.17 pm
      Mr. Phil Willis: I echo the comments of many hon. Members who have praised the quality of the Select Committee's report on Ofsted. Although the area is contentious, such a unanimous report speaks volumes for the gifted leadership of its co-Chairman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks).
      The report makes more than 65 recommendations, the vast majority of which have been welcomed by teacher unions, governor and parent associations, the Local Government Association and most hon. Members. It is a positive and balanced report, seeking to find common

      67
      ground between often differing views. It is important that it be acted on. Hopefully, in replying to the debate, the Minister will describe how the Department for Education and Employment intends to deal with each of the recommendations.
      The Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats supported the Labour party in opposition in calling for a full governmental review of Ofsted. We had hoped that, as the Government, they would fulfil that pledge. The Select Committee inquiry may be seen by some as second best, but that would be extremely unfair. None the less, we would of course have liked more details and more debate on some areas.
      The jury is still out on the appropriateness of the framework for inspecting special schools, especially those that deal with children who have severe learning and behavioural difficulties. Detailed research on the impact of mobility on school performance is necessary in order to come up with conclusions. More particularly, the pre-inspection context and school indicator—PICSI—data on which the background to school inspections in based clearly requires far greater attention. In work that is going on in Leeds at the moment, Benefits Agency data are being used as the basis for looking at a school's profile—instead of the pre-inspection context and school indicators, which are currently used.
      Despite these criticisms, I believe that we should see the report as a starting point in the continuous public review and scrutiny of the Ofsted process. In particular, the Government should take heed of the uncertainty that surrounds the accountability of Ofsted to Parliament. The conclusion of the Select Committee at paragraph 196—
      "we conclude that the accountability mechanisms for Ofsted are not sufficiently robust. Nor do they demonstrate that Ofsted is fully accountable for its work"—
      is extremely important. It goes right to the heart of much of the public and professional criticism of Ofsted and of the chief inspector of schools.
      The recommendations of a regular debate in Parliament on the annual report and the scrutiny of the work of Ofsted by the Select Committee are both welcome. I remain to be convinced—although my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is entirely convinced—that a board of commissioners would significantly improve accountability, although I agree with the Committee that the Government should keep an open mind on that issue. No doubt if my hon. Friend catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will lucidly explain why he believes that a board of commissioners is needed.
      The introduction of a quinquennial review is perhaps the most important recommendation. The review would not only enhance public accountability but ensure that Ofsted remained a dynamic organisation, responsive to an ever changing educational world. On 17 February, in evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister said no to a quinquennial review. We trust that she may have reconsidered that position and may change her mind when she responds.
      Such a review would, too, help to address the issue of the accountability of the chief inspector of schools, which I suspect for many is the key issue at the heart of the accountability debate. The appointment of the chief inspector and, more specifically, any re-appointment,
      68
      should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and review, and the Minister will be failing to catch the mood of the report—and of the profession—if she does not respond positively.
      In our view, it would have been wrong for any chief inspector, let alone the present controversial incumbent, to be reappointed to his post without being subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Ofsted's work has changed considerably since 1992. The chief inspector now reports on the inspection of initial training and local education authorities. Yet his suitability for the enhanced role and his massive increase in salary were never publicly evaluated. If public inspection and review is good enough for our teachers, it should be good enough for the chief inspector.
      Try as we may, it is difficult to talk about Ofsted without discussing the role of Chris Woodhead. They go together like strawberries and cream—or some might say sour cream.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bath and I have been among the strongest critics of Mr. Woodhead's style of leadership. We do not accept that his confrontational style was either necessary or desirable. Much of the demonisation of Ofsted has arisen from his public utterances, and the style of the early inspections took their lead from what he said in public.
      The Select Committee report is masterly in its criticism. It condemns Mr. Woodhead's penchant for self-publicity and his use of intemperate language to make unsubstantiated criticisms of the teaching profession. The message to him from the Select Committee is clear: he has a duty to promote debate on education issues, but the debate should arise from evidence-based conclusions, not personal prejudice. In short, his style must change.
      I am one of the very few Members present who, as a serving head teacher, experienced an Ofsted inspection before entering the House.
      Mr. Damian Green: Did the hon. Gentleman fail it?
      Mr. Willis: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not. I thank him, however, for his concern.
      In view of my previous comments, the House may be surprised to hear that, for me, the experience of the inspection was very positive. It was very positive for many of my colleagues who, sometimes for the first time, had the quality of their work independently recognised. It was very positive for the governors, who all too often spent their time dealing with the problems caused by social, economic and educational exclusion. It was very positive for our youngsters, who genuinely enjoyed meeting these strange, oft-talked-about beings called inspectors—especially the two youngsters who persuaded one of the inspectors that they had lost their dinner money on Monday and then again on Tuesday.
      The inspection was a rewarding experience for the inspectors, one of whom I met last night at the teaching awards ceremony. I should add that one of them nearly benefited from the free can of Coke that he was offered to give his form teacher a good mark but, to his eternal credit, turned it down.
      The Ofsted inspection of John Smeaton community high school was stressful, but it was a success because of the quality of the registered inspector—an outstanding

      69
      man called Champak Chauhan. The way in which he prepared for the inspection with the school, and the way he dealt with the school community during the visit, were both thoroughly professional. His team was experienced and thus had the confidence of the staff. The inspection balanced audit with advice; it left the school community feeling proud of its achievements and aware of its failings but, above all, with a clear direction in which to move. That should be the experience of every single school community—but we know that it is not.
      Liberal Democrats have always supported a strong, vigorous and independent inspection system for our schools. However, we believe that Ofsted inspections should be part of a wider process, and that audit by itself will not raise standards. The two elements of external inspection and continuous internal review, although distinct, must be linked. Ofsted should be charged with inspecting a school's internal review process, which should be rigorous and focused. By placing an emphasis on continuous review, as complementary to formal inspection, we could ensure that quality assurance comes not once every six years, but in every single year of a school's life.
      No one seriously suggests that Ofsted should be responsible for supplying support to schools, but it is in a unique position in having observed a wealth of outstanding practice in our schools, and it should make that experience available. We would like the Government to consider how the good practice assembled by Ofsted could be disseminated to schools.
      Of course, although we seek an enhanced role for Ofsted, schools must be confident that they are being inspected by competent inspectors with relevant current experience. The Select Committee was not able to form a conclusion on that matter, but we strongly believe that the cause of quality is not served by the present contracting system and the status of registered inspectors. We believe that, as costs are driven down, quality will fall further. A profession for which the Government are currently trying to produce a new career structure, in order to attract the brightest and the best, is entitled to an inspection system that is not based on a part-time force of casual workers—a "Dad's Army" of retired teachers and inspectors.
      As the Committee Chairman said, we must have more serving teachers and head teachers on inspection teams, but to do so we must provide an appropriate pay scale that reflects the serious job of work that needs to be done. That should not be subject to the whims of the market.
      The registered inspector is crucial to the inspection process. We believe that the inspectors should be HMIs—Her Majesty's inspectors—and should have permanent salaried status. We cannot accept that such a crucial role should be subject to the vagaries of who wins the contract.
      Last night, the Minister and I attended, with others, a celebration of excellence in our schools at the national teaching awards celebration. It was probably the first time in my lifetime—especially my professional lifetime—that such a celebration has taken place on such a scale. It was certainly the first time that prime-time television had presented such an overwhelmingly positive picture of teachers to the nation.
      Chris Woodhead may have believed that by saying that there were 15,000 failing teachers he would improve standards in our schools. Last night, by celebrating the work of 450,000 teachers, the teaching awards trust and the BBC did exactly that.
      6.30 pm
      helen Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. Like the Select Committee, I believe that a rigorous and independent inspection system is vital if we are to improve our children's education. However, I believe that any system of education inspection must be judged by how well it helps us to do that. For an inspection system to achieve that goal, it must do several things. It must be fair and consistent, provide solid evidence of what is happening in our schools and give feedback to teachers and parents. It must celebrate and spread good practice as well as pointing out failings. In other words, it must tell us clearly what works. We and the Select Committee have done an excellent job in these regards, but we must decide also what works in Ofsted, and what does not.
      There have been some successes. The inspection system now focuses clearly on the process of teaching and learning in the classroom and on highlighting weaknesses in schools instead of focusing on structures. That is exactly how it should be. The Ofsted framework generally has been widely praised. It is true, as the Chairman of the Select Committee has said—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks)—that most schools have found their inspectors to be professional and courteous, despite there being some problems with certain teams. Nevertheless, we must face the fact—I find this in schools in my constituency every week—that the mention of Ofsted still instils fear and loathing in classrooms.
      The Select Committee has drawn attention to the negative effect that the inspection process can have. Worryingly, the evidence given to it shows a wide disparity between head teachers' appreciation of the inspection process and the views of classroom teachers. The inspection process will never be easy for anyone. No profession and no individual likes being inspected.
      If we are to enhance the Ofsted process and ensure that it has credibility, we must tackle three issues. First, we must ensure that the inspection system is not so bureaucratic that it interferes with good teaching in the classroom. Secondly, we must ensure that parents and teachers have confidence in the quality and consistency of the inspection process. Thirdly, we must, regrettably, consider the role and profile adopted by the chief inspector.
      I was pleased that, in his letter reappointing the chief inspector, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called for a more flexible inspection style. I welcome also the move to a six-yearly cycle of inspections. It seems self-evident that schools that are failing or are not delivering improvements need more attention from inspectors than those that are succeeding, as, too, do those schools that on paper might be achieving good results, but in practice are coasting and not allowing their pupils to reach their full potential. The Government call that intervention in inverse proportion to success. Being a simple soul, I prefer to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
      As well as taking that approach, we must reduce the notice of inspections still further. I welcome the fact that it has now been reduced to between 10 and six weeks. I welcome also the chief inspector's assurance to the Select Committee that he did not need van-loads of paperwork. I agree with the Select Committee on reducing the notice still further, but I would like to see many more unannounced inspections. That would reduce the

      71
      bureaucratic burden on teachers and provide us with a much more effective picture of what is happening in schools. I do not wish to overstate the case, but it is not unknown for schools to rehearse for inspection, and to do so does not give anyone a true picture of what is going on.
      However, that will not be enough. Schools must have confidence in the consistency and quality of inspections. I agree that we need far more inspectors with recent experience of the classroom. I think that the average age of inspection teams is about 52. I do not wish to denigrate the members of those teams, but it is clear that most of them, like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the Government Whip, cannot have recent classroom experience. It is essential that serving teachers and head teachers are members of the inspection teams because of their experience and to increase the confidence of the profession in the inspection process.
      When inspectors are inspecting schools, they should spend far more time in the classroom than they do now. Thirty or 40 minutes is not enough to grade a teacher. If that happened in any other profession there would be an outcry.
      We need to examine carefully the quality assurance procedures that are adopted by Ofsted to ensure consistency between different inspection teams. Ofsted's research into the reliability and validity of its process was heavily criticised by one witness on the ground that it covered only volunteers who knew that they were being observed. I agree that that is not a particularly good method of research.
      I was disturbed by the evidence of some chief education officers that there was as much as a 15 per cent. difference between how their inspectors saw schools and how Ofsted inspectors saw them. That in itself must give us cause for thought and make us question the figures. Knowing the chief inspector's views on education research, I am reluctant to recommend more. However, it is clear that some serious research is needed on how the inspection process functions. Ofsted's research should inform the comments that the chief inspector makes about schools. He has adopted a high public profile, unlike his colleague in Wales. Whether that improves children's education is debatable. It is right that any chief inspector should be able to comment on education issues and advise Ministers, but those comments and that advice must be based on sound evidence that has been gathered by inspection teams. They must not be personal prejudices and polemics, and they must highlight good practice.
      I was pleased that my right hon. Friend's letter of appointment called for good practice to be highlighted. We do not improve teacher morale by constant denigration. Similarly, we do not attract good graduates into the profession by adopting that approach. It may be a truism, but we cannot have good schools without good teachers. The chief inspector and everyone else should bear that in mind.
      I hope that we shall have no more incidents like the chief inspector's comment that 15,000 teachers should be removed, which was based solely on lesson observations in small primary schools. I have said previously that that sort of research would not pass muster with the supervisor of a first-year post-graduate. It is not good enough. The
      72
      hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) might remember that in May 1996 the chief inspector, having made comments about achievements in standard assessment tests, gave evidence to the then Education and Employment Select Committee which seemed to indicate that he did not understand either a normal distribution curve or the concept of an average. I hope that we shall not have another incident such as that. More progress in English and maths is clearly to be expected.
      Mr. Willis: Mr. Woodhead was an English teacher.
      Helen Jones: The Chief Inspector was an English teacher and so was I, but at least I understand what an average is.
      I want to see the chief inspector and Ofsted move forward and develop much more consensus about the work of the inspection service. I want to see him presiding over an inspection system which takes account of the context in which schools work, including factors such as pupil mobility and social deprivation. Those factors are not an excuse for failure, but we need to find the schools that have overcome such problems, in order that other schools can learn to overcome them as well. I hope that the chief inspector will develop much more of a professional dialogue with teachers, so that we can move forward together and see them as partners in raising standards in our schools, not as the enemy.
      This is not, after all, a war. We are all on the same side—the side of raising standards. I hope that we move forward to a more consensual, collegiate approach that will benefit parents and teachers. Most of all, it will help to raise standards in our schools which, as the Select Committee rightly points out, is what our children deserve.
      6.40 pm
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My attitude to the estimates is somewhat ambivalent. I am a great admirer of the inspectorate, by which I mean a great admirer of the chief inspector himself and of the system that has been put in place—which, incidentally, I regard as one of the great achievements of the education policies of the former Administration.
      However, I am deeply concerned about the funding of former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire. Looking at the sum involved—£59.5 million—I am conscious that a small fraction of that would enable the Government to address the problems currently experienced by the former grant-maintained schools in the county that I represent.
      On balance, my conclusion is that it is important that we approve the estimates so that the inspectorate can thoroughly examine the funding and the difficulties of former grant-maintained schools generally, and in particular in Lincolnshire.
      To enable the inspectorate to perform the task that I hope it will perform as a result of the money that I anticipate the House will vote on the estimates, it may be helpful if I say a few brief words about the difficulties of the former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire, which are suffering underfunding as a direct consequence of the Government's policy.
      Before I do that, there is a constitutional point worth making. The matter is relevant exclusively to England. Were there to be a vote on the matter—I do not suggest

      73
      that there will be a vote—I feel fairly certain that Government Whips would call on their colleagues from Scottish constituencies to vote. That would be a bizarre proposition.
      I see no reason why Scottish representatives in the House should vote on funds that are relevant exclusively to English education. It is worth identifying this issue as one of many that will arise, on which we hope that representatives of Scottish constituencies will disqualify themselves from participating in votes. That, I understand, is the intention of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose courage is much to be commended in this regard.
      I am anxious to stay fully in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I emphasise that I support the vote in favour of the Ofsted grant of £59.5 million, in the hope that part of the money will be used to look into the problems of the former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire. To enable the inspectorate to discharge the functions that I hope it will perform as a result of the decision of the house, I shall outline the difficulties in Lincolnshire.
      The problem is that former grant-maintained schools were funded in three ways.
      Valerie Davey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Before the hon. Lady intervenes, may I say that the report is about the work of Ofsted? I would not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to dwell on the position of former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire. That is not relevant to the report before us.
      Mr. Hogg: May I try to address the anxiety which I anticipated would be in your mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker? My purpose, obviously, is to highlight the problems of the former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire, because they are suffering from a deficit that is the direct and intended consequence of Government policy. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All Members of Parliament have problems relating to their constituencies and their communities. Hon. Members know as well as I do that there are many avenues through which to highlight those problems, such as Adjournment debates and perhaps other education debates. However, in this debate the right hon. and learned Gentleman must stick to the terms of the report.
      Mr. Hogg: I accept the rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying briefly to highlight the point, but to stay in order. You have kindly reminded us that there are many ways in which the point can be highlighted. May I suggest to you that this may be one such, because it is part of the function of the inspectorate to look into schools? I suggest to the house, through you, that there is a particular problem with former grant-maintained schools, which the inspectorate ought to address.
      The estimates give to the inspectorate £59.5 million, so it should have ample opportunity to look into those specific problems. To enable the inspectorate more fully
      74
      and effectively to confront that task, I suggest that it would be in order for me briefly to identify the problem. I think that that is in order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not dwell on the matter. If he wants to mention in passing the problems that might arise and which the inspectorate should examine, that is fine, but I am trying to say as bluntly as I can that he should not make a meal of it.
      Mr. Hogg: You have put your ruling graciously, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That being so, I shall respond in precisely the way that you suggest—not by making a meal of it, but in broad terms. As you see, I have put aside my notes.
      In broad terms, the problem confronting all grant-maintained schools is that in providing funding in the current year, the Government have ensured that the funding of former grant-maintained schools is being frozen at the cash level in 1998–99. That is resulted in Lincolnshire and no doubt in many other places—
      Mr. Bob Blizzard: What about Suffolk?
      Mr. Hogg: The same may well be true of Suffolk. The Government's policy has resulted in redundancies—
      Valerie Davey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point. He has put the matter on record. He should leave it at that and concentrate on the report before us.
      Mr. Hogg: You have put the ruling very clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Therefore I shall not go on challenging it. I have identified a serious problem with regard to former grant-maintained schools. The problem may well occur in Suffolk; it certainly occurs in Lincolnshire.
      I hope that the estimates will enable the inspectorate to focus on the former grant-maintained schools, especially in Lincolnshire, and to ask itself whether Government policy is having a seriously damaging effect on the quality of education in those schools. That is my contention and I hope that, following the approval of the estimates, the inspectorate will tackle the task that I have outlined.
      6.49 pm
      Miss Melanie Johnson: I am minded to follow the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) by referring to "Inspection '98: the Supplement to the Inspection handbooks Containing New Requirements and Guidance". The annexe, which is headed "Seriously Misleading Reports", states:
      "Procedures are established for dealing with reports which are judged to be seriously misleading".
      I introduce that reference to the debate so that hon. Members can reflect on it in the present context.
      I have many interests to declare. I am still accredited to work as an Ofsted team inspector, which is my former occupation, and I declare that interest in case hon.

      75
      Members believe it to be significant to the debate. I have further interests: my three children are in the schools system and my constituency is full of children. All of us in the Chamber have tremendous interest in that aspect of our provision.
      I shall make a number of comments on the report, and I begin with a few on the efficiency of the system. I was a member of a county curriculum committee some years ago, when Her Majesty's inspectorate was responsible for reporting on schools. It is worth recalling that its reports often arrived with county councils and local education authorities as many as 12 months after the inspection. Although we are considering extending by a week or so the time that the inspector has to complete the report, one of the triumphs of the present system is they are completed to a tight schedule. As a result, there is a tremendously fast turnaround for schools.
      I believe, as the report suggests, that it is better for schools to have less notice that the inspectors are going in. I have been on the opposite end of the process from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—he was on the receiving end—and I agree with the report's comments about the anticipatory dread experienced by many schools as a result of the long lead-in times. It is better that they have less time to worry about the imminent visit of the inspectors, not least because less paperwork will be produced in some cases.
      The report comments wisely that often too much paperwork is produced for inspectors. I remember inspecting a school at which 42 box files of paper were presented to us; the experience was similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), of the man with the van who had to collect the paperwork. Those masses of paper are often the result of nothing but panic in the school management team about the arrival of Ofsted. That does not help the team, the school, the staff or the system. I commend the suggestion that we give schools as little notice as is practicable for all sides.
      On the question of the quality of the teams, there is always a danger with the present system—indeed, with any system—that the bad or the cynical will paint a picture of the system for everybody else. There has been too much of that in the present circumstances. Section 3.1 of the inspection framework for schools requires that the inspection reflects the nature of the school, which is important. It is important to remember that a report is a snapshot of a school during the inspection and inspectors in good teams always take into account the nature of the children, the school's circumstances and its recent history.
      Although I have not checked this out recently, when I last spoke to colleagues I gathered that team members are no longer named on bids for Ofsted contracts. I am a little concerned about that. At one time, it was standard for Ofsted to require the team to be named on the bid for a school. In the light of the Select Committee's remark that it would be highly desirable to achieve a better match between experience and the school and to ensure that the quality of the team is good, it would be excellent if team members could be put forward as part of the contracting process in more cases, or at least in sensitive ones. The schools are not known by the contractors, which makes the process of contracting blind on both sides, and, although that situation will end in August, that does not help in respect of quality.
      76
      As different parties remarked in evidence to the Select Committee, larger contractors are not necessarily synonymous with higher quality. A message was left on my home answering machine only a few weeks ago by someone I had never heard of informing me that an inspection was taking place near my home and asking whether I would like to do it. I am obviously still on the list of inspectors and that person did not know that I was otherwise engaged in other places. Some of the smaller teams work closely together, and their members are used to doing that, so the problem of car park syndrome—teams were thought to have met in the car park—can be avoided. That was not my experience of working, and I played a part in inspecting about 50 schools in the four years before I was elected to the house.
      Paragraph 69 discusses pre-Ofsted inspection and consultancies. It is worth remarking in this context that that highlights the need for the Government's proposals on appraisal and re-emphasises the importance of head teachers and leadership in schools. As we all know from our experience, a surprisingly large number of schools are going for pre-Ofsted consultancies. Making sure that the school is performing as it should be in the normal course of events, monitoring its work, reviewing its activities and appraising the performance of the staff and of the school as an organisation should be part of the normal work of managing the school and a normal activity for head teachers, heads of department and other senior managers in the school.
      Quality depends in large part on the quality of the registered inspector. In this context, it is relevant to consider some of the financial issues on which the Select Committee took evidence. In my experience, a large number of such people have retired early. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (helen Jones) commented on age, to the discomfort of our Whip, but I should point out that some such people have retired only recently and may be younger than some of those still working in the service. A tranche of people retired early at about the time at which Ofsted was established and they are probably reaching the age at which they will retire from the system once and for all. As a result, a large number of people will leave the system in the not-too-distant future. Most inspectors work part-time. The occupation is not full-time and the financial aspects of the system require them to be dedicated to other things. People cannot work part-time—in part, that was my situation—or they have to have a pension or money coming in from elsewhere.
      Although the quality of the registered inspector is important, there is a lot to be said about the quality of team members. As a number of hon. Members have commented, it would be highly desirable for serving heads, deputies and, possibly, even teachers to be on inspection teams, although that would have resource implications. For example, I served on a number of inspection teams with the head teacher of a special school. He was an invaluable member of those teams, but, because of the nature of the inspection process, he had to leave his own school for a week during the inspection and for a period either side of it. Schools have to be able to cope with such absence, which ought to be the case, and cover arrangements would have to be made. Those who currently serve in our schools are unable to be greatly involved in inspections, and they would have to be trained, but trying to increase participation in such positions would be worth while.

      77
      I have already mentioned the need to match the team to the school and we could be doing more on that. I do not think that shadowing is viable because it puts people in a difficult position. I have been a school governor for many years and, if I were invited to shadow the members of an inspection team, things would be difficult for them and difficult for me.
      Paragraph 126 of the report showed that there was a reassuringly high correlation in the judgments made by inspectors on the same lesson. People have commented about the nature of inspectors' judgments and the discrepancies between local education authorities' inspections and the inspection reports that have been issued. Sometimes, the reports by Ofsted inspectors have been better than those by LEA inspectors, and sometimes the converse. It is important to recognise, however, that judgment is not a science but an art. People who are in a position to judge the performance of others bring only their own ability to look at them in that context and to make a human decision about how well they are doing. It will never be an exact science.
      It is important to consider the issue of special schools. Inspecting a special school is very different from inspecting a primary or secondary school. Too much is made of whether special schools should be inspected, but such inspections are almost inevitable. The framework for them is now different: for the first two years, there was a common framework, but that was subsequently split into three separate sections—secondary, primary and special. Thus, to some degree, the framework has already been tailored and, more recently, moves have been made to ensure that it is more tailored. The advice given to inspectors reflects that.
      Inspections place enormous pressure on small primary schools where it is difficult for the inspection team not to be a heavyweight presence. While it is there, it probably has to inspect most of the classes most of the time, whereas in a large secondary school many teachers are often not seen by team members. It is therefore important to look at how inspections work, particularly with small primary schools.
      Two of the points made in the report are about the inspection of only parts of lessons. That occurs for a variety of practical reasons, not least because timetabling sometimes results in very long lessons. Another reason is that inspectors of particular subjects must see a mix of the year group, the teachers and the subjects within a particular department, such as modern languages, where more than one subject is taught. It is important to be aware that the only constraint on inspectors staying longer in a lesson is that of resources—the number of hours allocated to a team to cover a school inspection. Paragraph 92 on feedback also has resource implications as it relates to inspectors going straight into lessons. If one is following up in one lesson, one obviously cannot be there at the start of the next. Those two points need to be brought together.
      Paragraph 90 deals with the grading of lessons and points out that it is not teachers who are being graded. It is important to realise that, in the original system, Ofsted inspectors graded not teachers but lessons. I am slightly uncomfortable about how, subsequently, teachers became the subject of grading. That was not necessarily constructive and did not help to reinforce the fact that the school and the teaching, rather than individual members of staff, were being inspected.
      78
      On accountability, I believe that the annual report that we are debating would be a constructive move. It would allow more public discussion of the report itself and would highlight the information in the report, which sometimes receives scant and, as others have said, fairly skewed coverage for a variety of reasons. We must be careful about how the information is presented. Last week's report on improvements in primary standards as a result of the national literacy and numeracy hours shows that we can either present the results nicely and say that four out of five lessons were satisfactory or better, or we can say that only one in five lessons was unsatisfactory. It is question of presentation, and we need to get that right.
      Ofsted has done much that is good. Hon. Members might expect me to say that, but neither the local education authority inspectorates nor hMI ever had the same collection of evidence from across the entire education system as Ofsted now has. Last week's primary report is based on 1.25 million lessons, which is a phenomenal evidence base. Although it is better to target resources as we propose, because we have completed a full cycle in all cases, the collection of a large amount of evidence in the first place shows the vital role that Ofsted has played.
      The value of the inspection framework has also been commented on. Parents are reassured to have their suspicions confirmed, whether about the good points or the weaknesses of a particular school.
      I dare to say that the report is good, but as an inspector I must resist the temptation to grade it. Ofsted is very good, especially given the recent adaptation. I am sure that this report goes some way to improving it further, as it should.
      7.7 pm
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who obviously speaks with a great deal of practical experience of Ofsted inspections. I also compliment the Select Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks); they have done a workmanlike job in producing this report.
      It is worth just noting that Ofsted was set up in 1992 and was very much a Conservative policy. I am delighted that, these days, there is a spirit of cross-party co-operation, both on the Committee and in the Chamber, about the importance of Ofsted. That view has not always characterised the attitude of the leaders of some teaching unions. All too often, the reservations, which have not abated in the intervening years, have been funnelled into personalised criticism of the chief inspector. With some of them, it is still a coded attack on the concept of inspections altogether.
      As has already been mentioned by at least one other hon. Member this evening, Ofsted has now completed its first full cycle of inspections, having inspected all of the country's 24,000 schools over a four-year period. Under the old system, secondary schools were inspected on average once every 50 years and primary schools once every 200 years, which says something about the previous system.
      What this is all about is helping the process of accountability in education. Ofsted has always had, and will continue to have, its critics, who do not want this

      79
      level of inspection and accountability in our education system, but the great weight of serious opinion, both in this House and in the teaching profession, is now firmly behind the concept of Ofsted. I very much welcome that.
      The concept of inspection has reached a high pitch of interest. In my constituency—I am sure that Eastbourne is not atypical in this respect—the local papers cover Ofsted reports, with detailed coverage of the results and much picking over of the recommendations and findings. There is a vigorous rebuttal process by teachers and governors if the school feels that it has been treated unfairly. That is extremely valuable, because it brings the inspection process into sharp focus as it affects individual schools and communities.
      Bishop Bell secondary school in my constituency has been turned round in the past couple of years by a new head teacher, Mr. Terry Boatwright. There is now a completely new attitude. I cannot help feeling that much of that is due to the inspection process and the prospect of an Ofsted inspection. At this time of year, or a little earlier, my mail bag used to fill up with letters from parents whose children had been allocated to that school. They said that they would rather die than have their child sent to that school. It was a massive problem, because it put enormous pressure on the other secondary schools in the area. As a result, Bishop Bell school had falling rolls, poor buildings—which it had to start off with—a poor reputation and was unable to attract the support that a successful school should have attracted. The writing was on the wall when permission was given to build a brand new school, Causeway school, which is now open. It is an attractive school, and is not far from Bishop Bell school.
      One envisaged the new school attracting children away from Bishop Bell school and sucking its support. The moment had come when it was either to succeed or to fail. The governors took that on board, and a new head teacher was recruited. The school has been turned round, and parents now write to me because they cannot get their children into Bishop Bell school and ask me what I can do about it. That is a tribute to the school and the commitment and dedication of the head teacher, teachers, governors and parents. It fits neatly into the whole picture of inspection and of encouraging and driving up standards in schools, which was a centrepiece of education policy under the previous Conservative Government, and which, at least in their rhetoric, the present Government have also taken on board.
      The inspection system gives real backing to dedicated and determined teachers and head teachers, and can make all the difference. A former Conservative colleague, Rhodes Boyson, who was very much loved in the House, was a well-known head teacher. He had strong views about the teaching profession, and he once memorably said that some teachers could teach a class of 50 in a bus shelter without any difficulties, whereas some teachers could have a riot on their hands with one dead chicken. We have all met both categories of teacher.
      The Ofsted process enhances and underpins the concept of parental choice. Parents must be able to make an informed choice. There is a report in today's Evening Standard about the remarks of Mr. Justice Kay in a case
      80
      brought about the assisted places scheme in private schools. He severely criticised some of the undertakings that were given by the Prime Minister and Ministers.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not talking about Ofsted, so he is straying from the subject of the debate.
      Mr. Waterson: I am happy to take your guidance on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was talking about parental choice, which is vital to our education system. The Conservative Government did much to breathe life into that concept. They did more than just pay lip service to the principle of parental choice.
      With regard to the before and after effects on schools of an Ofsted inspection, the word "dread" may be slightly strong, but when I visit a school in my constituency that is preparing for an Ofsted report there is an air of constructive tension about the place. In some schools, people go to unnecessary lengths. That was dealt with in the report, which was right to talk about the dangers of over-preparation for an inspection. That is one reason why there is considerable support in the report and across the Chamber for unannounced, snap inspections. There is considerable scope for that, because if schools have a long notice period before an inspection, there is a genuine danger of over-preparation.
      The report rightly refers to optimal tension between the inspectors and the inspected. That is important, because although the normal business of a school should not be brought to a grinding halt by the prospect of a looming inspection, it would be wrong and pointless if there were not an air of apprehension and worry about the effect of the inspection on the school. It is a tribute to those doing the inspecting—especially given what the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield said—that in the great majority of instances they manage to tread the narrow line between being over-officious and over-zealous and missing things that are important in any such inspection.
      I should like to say a brief word about special schools, because the report dwells on them. It says:
      "A rigorous and appropriate approach is needed to the inspection of special schools."
      That is absolutely right, but in paragraph 19 reference is made to the fact that
      "the proportion of special schools judged to require special measures (that is, 'failed' their inspection) was far higher than the proportion of mainstream schools requiring special measures."
      I can testify to that problem by using an example in my constituency. Eastbourne has an excellent special school called hazel Court, which has tremendously dedicated staff and has many children who suffer from a variety of severe disabilities. Not long ago, it was inspected by Ofsted, which made serious criticisms of the school. At the time, there was strong feeling in the school and in the wider community that it was being tested against a wrong set of criteria, and was being treated unfairly. I am sure that that was not the intention of those involved in the inspection, and that no one in that school or in any other special school would argue that they should be given an easier ride than any other educational institutions.
      I endorse paragraph 23 of the report, which recommends that, whenever possible, the team inspecting a special school should
      "include members with relevant experience of special schools".

      81
      It looks to Ofsted
      "to monitor closely the composition of the teams that inspect special schools to determine the extent to which their experience reflects the particular challenges which special schools face."
      I could not have put it better. There is real concern about how special schools are inspected. I am sure that this recommendation will be taken up by the inspectorate, if it has not already been pursued, and that it will remove the problem that I described in the special school in my constituency.
      I have tried—I hope that I have succeeded—to give two specific examples of Ofsted inspections and their effect in my constituency. The report contains much good sense and many practical proposals. If I had enough time, I could dwell on many more such proposals, but I have tried to identify those that have particular resonance in my constituency. I again commend the Committee's work.
      7.20 pm
      Valerie Davey: As a member of the Select Committee, I endorse its recommendations.
      I want briefly to consider three underlying features of Ofsted's work: its contribution to the raising of standards in schools, the nature of the inspection process, and Ofsted's role in encouraging the wider learning perspective—a learning society.
      Inspection—external, objective inspection—is overwhelmingly supported, but it does not in itself raise standards. Measuring does not increase length, and weighing does not increase weight. Traditionally, we have been guided by exam results, but there is much more to it than that. In every respect, we depend on teachers to raise standards.
      I entirely accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) said about the assessment of schools' performance. Ofsted is assessing overall performance. That requires profiles and carefully established criteria, but assessing a whole school's performance is Ofsted's task. Having inspected schools, collected data, and assessed effectiveness and good practice, Ofsted has produced a virtual library of material to assist those who can affect standards more directly: Ministers, schools and colleges, teachers and governors.
      Ofsted's process of monitoring and assessing schools is different from that of any other inspecting body. We are not looking at a single product; we are looking at a community—a complex community, including pupils, teachers, governors and parents. The very presence of inspectors is likely to change the dynamic—the effect of relationships—for good or for bad. There is a direct impact on the school community involved, and it is against that part of Ofsted's work that most criticism has been levelled.
      A purely distant, judgmental role for Ofsted is not acceptable; the process must be developmental, while remaining objective. There must be a recognition of the impact of self-evaluation, which so many schools have now developed and which, in the long term, is essential. Teaching must involve high expectation, mutual respect and encouragement, which must be reflected in inspections. All education involves learning on the part of both teacher and student, and that too must include Ofsted.
      Clearly, a wealth of information is gained, digested and used by Ofsted inspectors. However, inspectors must also genuinely recognise that they can still learn, and that they
      82
      make mistakes. I am still dismayed by one example. A registered inspector, having been forcefully and consistently criticised by schools for his own forceful style, was finally deregistered—only to be sent a personal letter by HMCI offering to "oil the wheels" for his future.
      The latest response—the primary report, also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield—reflects well on those three aspects of inspection. The Times Educational Supplement features the beautiful headline, "Woodhead applauds improved primaries". At last, it is good news all round: good, because standards are rising, and because HMCI is genuinely congratulating teachers and heads. There is a "but", however. As this is an estimates debate, let me refer to a commentary on the report. I believe that it was mentioned earlier.
      According to the commentary, new ground is being broken. The report suggests that there is a case for additional resources in schools in tougher areas, which face problems that others do not. It says that more trained teacher assistants should be employed, and that class sizes should be reduced. I am afraid that local education authorities have known that for many years; it is too costly for Ofsted to have only just reached the same conclusion. In addition, Mr. Woodhead insisted that he was not advocating extra Government funding: he was suggesting only that local authorities should take account of the different needs of the schools involved.
      I was asked to be brief. Let me conclude by saying that, if Ofsted is to succeed in its many diverse roles, it must be respected and above reproach. Ofsted should not be feared, although I accept that it will not often be wholeheartedly welcomed. In all instances, there must be mutual respect, and a dialogue between professionals. I believe that, if that is to be achieved, Ofsted must enter the new millennium under new leadership, challenging our schools, teacher training centres and colleges at every level, and working in partnership to ensure excellence in both teaching and learning.
      7.26 pm
      Mr. Damian Green: We have heard speeches both from members of the Committee and from at least one former professional, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). I approach the subject rather tentatively, as an interested outsider.
      I read the Committee's report with great interest. It struck me as a very thorough report, on a subject that, although I have always felt it should not be, is contentious. Although, in many respects, the interest aroused by Ofsted's work is commendable, I think it a shame that every aspect of its work has to be contentious—particularly its chief inspector. Many Conservative Members—and, no doubt, some Labour Members—feel that any report such as this should make the basic point that Ofsted and its chief inspector, Chris Woodhead, have been overwhelmingly a force for good in England's education since 1992. Any remarks that I make that cast doubt on some aspects of Ofsted's work should be seen in that context.
      It is, of course, impossible to take a view on Ofsted without taking a view on Chris Woodhead; but before we deal with personalities, we should look at the facts of what he has achieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) pointed out, the fact that

      83
      Ofsted has inspected all 24,000 schools over a period of four years contrasts starkly with the long gaps between inspections that used to occur. More important than the process, however, is the product, and the fact that visible improvements in schools are now taking place.
      In 1996, 40 per cent. of teaching at key stages 1 and 2 was defined as good; the figure has now risen to 50 per cent. The number of 11-year-olds reaching the expected level in national curriculum tests in English and maths rose by 15 per cent. between 1994 and 1998. The incidence of teaching judged to be unsatisfactory or poor fell, over that four-year cycle, from one lesson in five to one in 14. Happily, the four-year cycle spans activity under both the present and the last Government. I can, therefore, resist the temptation to try to score partisan points, as, no doubt, can Labour Members.
      The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield suggested that whether we should see the figures in terms of one lesson in five being unsatisfactory or in terms of four in five being satisfactory was merely an issue of presentation. I am not sure that I agree. Surely it would be wrong to try to gloss over the fact that 20 per cent. of lessons in English schools were unsatisfactory. One of Ofsted's strengths has been that it has not been afraid to point out where things are unsatisfactory.
      I thank Ofsted for one of its first reports on local education authorities: the one on Kent, which was largely positive. I know that many people in Kent welcomed Ofsted's endorsement of the Kent system, which includes many grammar schools, which are under threat. In Kent, both parents of children at grammar schools and those of children at other schools would repeat the words of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (helen Jones)—"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"—and hope that the system that Ofsted has commended will be allowed to continue.
      Chris Woodhead and his teams have not only brought about individual improvements, but contributed to a culture change. In some ways, there is a new conventional wisdom about education that was not there about 10 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has referred to the former Education Minister and Member for Brent, North, Rhodes Boyson, who would be particularly pleased about the culture change. In the 1970s, when he and others produced the education black papers, and said things that are now regarded as conventional wisdom about the way lessons should be taught in school and the importance of discipline and of structured lessons, it was regarded as way-out radicalism.
      One of the unarguable improvements over the past 30 years is that those things have become the conventional wisdom in almost all areas—on both sides of the House and in most parts of education, although, I am sad to say, some of the more recalcitrant educationists in universities and a few in the teaching unions disagree. Indeed, that conventional wisdom is now shared even by Ministers. I am sure that the Minister will know that it is not what the Government seek to do, but the centralising way in which they seek to do it that Conservative Members object to.
      Not only does Ofsted deserve credit for much of that change in culture, but Chris Woodhead deserves personal credit. Perhaps he did have to be as single-minded as he has always been to drive through those changes. Various
      84
      hon. Members have criticised his style. Indeed, there has been some legitimate murmuring, if you like, about the way that he has sometimes addressed the teaching profession.
      I have heard about that matter from head teachers in both my constituency and beyond, whose views on education I respect hugely. They have seen times when Chris Woodhead has seemed not very attuned to sensitivities that he should have taken into account. Nevertheless, the overwhelming balance is on his side.
      If Chris Woodhead has occasionally erred in being too forceful, that fault was possibly made inevitable by the forces of inertia that he had to confront in the educational establishment. Certainly, nothing that he has done, or none of his views, is any excuse for the organised attack on him early this year, in part from, I regret to say, the Government Back Benches. A disputed episode in his personal life more than 20 years ago was no excuse for the personal vilification that he went through. Those attacks were transparently politically and ideologically motivated.
      I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of the debate to express her and the Government's continuing support for the chief inspector. I am sure that he was grateful—and I suspect that the House was—that, at the time, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment expressed that support.
      Despite Ofsted's many achievements, there are always improvements to be made and the report identifies some of them. We have heard from many Members about the importance of reducing, or at times perhaps abolishing. the period of notice. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the tremendous tension that builds in schools that are waiting to be, as the jargon has it, ofsteded—that particularly unlovely new term that has been added to the English language; to ofsted, I suppose, is the verb.
      Not only does that lead to an unrealistic assessment when the inspection finally takes place, but the amount of energy that is diverted into preparing for an Ofsted inspection seems, in some cases that I have seen, to damage palpably the quality of the teaching in that intervening period. Apart from that, some schools will go as far as rehearsing for an inspection, so they present an unrealistic picture of their real attainments when the inspectors come.
      Therefore, from all points of view, it would be better if it became the norm that there was no long period between the announcement of an Ofsted inspection and its implementation. Indeed, Ofsted inspectors could sometimes just drop in to schools to see what is happening on a normal day. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that, in relation to the various measures, some schools do not need to be inspected as often as schools that may not have been doing so well.
      The Minister and her colleagues are about to impose new burdens on Ofsted. Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it has already taken on the inspection of LEAs. Soon, it will inspect post-16 education. I hope that the Government will provide adequate resources.
      Ofsted is one of education's success stories over the past few years. It would be a great shame if that were put in jeopardy by under-resourcing its new and extra

      85
      responsibilities. Ofsted is now too important to be stretched too thinly. It needs to do an important job; up to now, it has done that job very well. It would be bad not just for Ofsted, but for all those at school and in post-16 education if the new burdens that Ofsted has willingly taken on—perhaps not burdens; the new jobs that it has taken on—were not adequately resourced.
      Perhaps that is an issue that the Minister will want to address more than any other not only in the debate, but in the months ahead. However, in general, like the Select Committee report, we would give Ofsted a clean bill of health, and give it and Chris Woodhead personally our thanks for the good work that they have done for English education since 1992.
      7.38 pm
      Mr. Gordon Marsden: I feel privileged to be able to speak in the debate. I am a member of the Select Committee that produced the report, the first report that I worked on as a member of the Committee. I feel that we have made a substantial contribution.
      It is important to touch on what we tried to do with the report. We were conscious of all the noises off. Therefore, the report was not intended to be a witch hunt either for or against the chief inspector. It was not intended to be a product of political correctness. It was intended to be thorough, considered, forensic and not personally judgmental. The aim was to recognise that both Ofsted and HMCI have to work for all the players in the schools sector—for teachers, parents and pupils. In that respect, everyone has a view. Everyone is a stakeholder.
      I am glad that all hon. Members have recognised that inspection is not a touchy-feely exercise. However, nor is it the Spanish inquisition or, as Professor Mortimore characterised it in his comments to us, a Kafkaesque process. What we have to ask about inspection is—this is highly relevant in response to the Government's emphasis on raising standards and putting standards at the heart of everything—how it gets schools from A to B. Since 1992, what has Ofsted achieved in raising standards? Is Ofsted learning, and is it getting better in the inspection process?
      The Select Committee report was, therefore, a structurally driven, not personality-driven inquiry. The report was meant to produce—I think that it has produced—recommendations that will produce results for the next 10 to 15 years. I should like to pay particular tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who chaired the Committee with excellent judgment, but to the Committee Clerks and my fellow Committee members, who put so much time and effort into the report.
      Some of the key issues thrown up by the report are far from the fire and brimstone media controversy about the chief inspector himself. For me, one of the report's most significant and important recommendations is that Ofsted should take account of significant variables, such as pupil mobility and absence. As a constituency Member of Parliament, those matters are particularly important, as annual student turnover at some of my schools is 30 to 40 per cent.
      Evidence is now beginning to emerge from the Department for Education and Employment on local education authorities that, in their educational development plans, have highlighted problems in pupil
      86
      enrolment turnover. LEAs with such problems are often in inner-city areas—particularly London boroughs with large short-term housing and transient groups—old manufacturing areas and seaside towns, in which the seasonal demands of the tourist industry and poor-quality housing exacerbate the problem. In 1997–98, my own local education authority, for example, took 1,200 pupils into its primary schools as non-routine admissions, constituting 15 per cent. of our entire primary school population.
      I am, therefore, pleased that, in our report, the Committee has highlighted turnover as a crucial factor. I am pleased also that the chief inspector has recognised that it is an important factor, and that there have been indications that it will be included formally in the future inspection process.
      I should also like to comment on the shorter, demystified inspections—which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North described as the secular equivalent of a royal visit, with all the trappings and traumas that go with that. Schools may not have new loos, but they have crates of paperwork and, if anyone ever wanted to stage that famous Gogol play "The Government Inspector", Ofsted would provide a very good context in which to do so.
      The Select Committee also tried to highlight in our report the fact that Ofsted and its inspectors perform a job that, necessarily, steers a third way between the audit approach and the management consultancy approach. Inspectors of course have to maintain an element of detachment, but they and Ofsted also have a duty to use their material to achieve the intended effect. Moreover, when the glass is not only half full, but 80 to 90 per cent. full, the chief inspector has a duty to recognise that fact in his comments.
      Accountability is a key issue: the question of who governs the governors is particularly relevant to Ofsted. The current structure of accountability—there is such a structure—is curiously attenuated.
      When we discuss options for the future, I hope that Ministers will reflect again on some of the issues mentioned in the report that they have not yet dealt with—particularly the board of commissioners and quinquennial reviews.
      The main issue is broader than Ofsted alone, however, and touches on the role that Parliament might play in an increasingly audit-obsessed society. It is also about the role that Parliament will have to play because of the increased importance of secondary legislation and the increased number of agencies that, inevitably, do not have to come before the Bar of the House. To that extent, in considering Ofsted, concerns about centralisation and checking the Executive are particularly relevant.
      I believe that Ofsted has an important role to play and a very good future ahead of it. However, if it is to play that role and have that future, Ofsted and the chief inspector of schools—whoever he or she may be in future—must learn the lessons of Ofsted's first few years and make necessary adjustments.
      Ofsted faces new challenges and new tests, not least the inspection of local education authorities and involvement in the post-16 sector. Although it is right and proper that Ofsted should be so involved, it is also important that Ofsted and the chief inspector do not go for easy applause and simplistic solutions that ignore current good practice.

      87
      That includes—in relation to the Further Education Funding Council, for example—taking on board feedback and college inspectors, who are very supportive.
      It is not surprising that concerns have already been expressed that Mr. Woodhead's hitherto gung-ho approach will go down like a lead balloon if he attempts to apply it in the further education sector. We must not lose the gains that have been made there.
      Ofsted has been a successful caravan, but it is a caravan that must move on. Although there must be no slacking on standards in Ofsted, neither must it constitute a hanging jury. If I were Mr. Woodhead, I should have gone away, read the Committee's report and digested what was said in it. He might also consider the reported remarks of Zsa Zsa Gabor—it may have been Mae West—that
      "Guys who act too macho aren't always mucho."
      I welcome the report's recommendations and the role that we propose for Ofsted. However, as I said at the beginning of the Select Committee's press conference on the report, it is vitally important that the singer is not allowed to get in the way of the song.
      7.46 pm
      Mr. James Clappison: This has been a good debate on an important subject and important report. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), began the debate with a thoughtful and measured speech, and all the subsequent speeches have followed in the same vein. The hon. Gentleman and the members of the Committee deserve our congratulations on having produced a balanced and sensible report which is plainly the result of a very great deal of hard work. The Opposition feel that the report and its recommendations should help to take forward Ofsted's work.
      The Committee deserves to be congratulated also on having chosen Ofsted as the subject of such a major inquiry. Occasionally, Ofsted has had a relatively high profile and been the subject of much comment. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) caught the flavour of some of that comment when he described it as "noises off'. Against that background, it is good for the Select Committee to examine an organisation that has become such an important part of the fabric of our education system.
      Ofsted was established in 1992, and it is fair to say that its advent was not greeted with universal acclaim. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made some well-justified remarks about that fact. Since 1992, however, Ofsted has undoubtedly been a success, which has been reflected in the speeches in this debate. As the hon. Member for Croydon, North rightly said, Ofsted's work takes its place—with the national curriculum, national testing and publication of results—as one of the pillars supporting and driving forward higher standards in our schools.
      I agreed with the evaluation of Ofsted made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and with the description by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)
      88
      of Ofsted as a force for good. The Opposition think that it would be difficult to overestimate the part that Ofsted has played in raising standards in our schools, not least because of the greater rigour and frequency that it has brought to the inspection process.
      School inspections were much less frequent before the inception of Ofsted inspections. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, I have heard estimates suggesting that, before Ofsted began its inspection regime, on average, secondary schools were inspected once every 50 years, and primary schools once every 200 years. I am not sure whether those estimates are entirely accurate, but inspections were certainly much less frequent before Ofsted started its work, and Ofsted's inspection cycle is certainly a big step forward.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was right also to draw a connection between Ofsted's inspections and improvements—sometimes dramatic improvements—in schools. He mentioned the Bishop Bell school in his constituency, and undoubtedly many other hon. Members could give examples of similarly high standards being achieved by schools in their constituencies. Not all high-achieving heads and teachers can go on television to receive awards, but we should be unstinting in recognising the good work in our constituencies.
      The task before us now is to find how best to build on the success of Ofsted—and there has been common ground across the House on that objective. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a thoughtful and valuable contribution, based on his relevant experience. However, I had a slight reservation when he started to talk about a full review. There is no question about the necessity of Ofsted, or about the way in which it is doing its work in general. As with the report, the purpose of any review should be to see how to build on what is being achieved. The report is an important aid in carrying out that task and, as the hon. Gentleman said, each of the recommendations calls for a careful response from the Government.
      I do not propose to go through each of the recommendations, but several need to be highlighted. One key issue is quality. Are the financial incentives now in place compatible with the high quality of inspections for which we are all looking? From the report and the evidence, it appears that the Minister was broadly satisfied with the present arrangements to ensure quality. The Committee was less sanguine about the matter at paragraphs 35 and 36, in which it stated:
      "we are anxious to ensure that the quality of every inspection team is high, and we have some sympathy with the concerns of inspection contractors who argued that the current process did not provide incentives for contractors to put in place high-quality training, development and quality assurance systems … We therefore take these concerns seriously as the contracting process has a significant impact on the quality of inspection team which is assembled by the successful contractor. The overall aim is to reach the highest level of quality which can be provided for by the system."
      That is one part of the Committee's report which calls for a particularly careful response, as does the part in which the Committee draws attention to the relationship between inspection quality and inspectors' pay. I listened to the interesting comments of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) on this subject, and

      89
      there appears to be good sense in the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 44 that Ofsted should undertake a study into rates of pay.
      Ofsted needs to look at the Committee's findings on unacceptably poor inspection practice, and to respond to the Committee's call to examine any potential flaws in its own quality assurance systems. The Committee also made sensible suggestions which are worthy of exploration on a range of other subjects, including feedback from inspections; improving the clarity of reports and cutting out jargon; and governing bodies nominating an observer to the inspection team. It is also common sense that self-evaluation should be complementary to external inspection, and not a substitute for it, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North said. Rigorous external inspection is indispensable.
      In paragraph 110, significantly, the Committee welcomes the introduction of short inspections, which accord with the wider principle—now being given some currency—of intervention in inverse proportion to success. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Minister for School Standards, and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), signify their assent for that principle. We agree, but—without introducing a discordant note—we wonder whether there are certain areas where it could be applied more consistently than it is at the moment. That principle holds good throughout education, and not just in those parts where the Government wish it to apply.
      The report referred also to the length of notice of inspections, and also to snap inspections. That was valuable, as this matter was clearly in the mind of Ofsted. Ofsted announced recently that the period of notice of inspections given to schools is to be reduced from two terms to between six and 10 weeks. The case has been made for a shorter period of notice for inspections, and the Committee concluded that it was in favour of reducing the period of notice of inspection to the shortest term that was practical. The Committee believed that four weeks' notice was appropriate, and there is merit in that approach. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield agreed with that proposition.
      We wonder whether it is possible to take the debate further on unannounced, so-called snap inspections. There is a good deal to be said for those as well. We note the evidence of the chief inspector, who said that he could see merit in the proposal. Paragraph 112 of the report states that snap visits might have several purposes—
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that there was an agreement that the time would be split more or less 50:50 between the two debates. The second debate has already conceded a little time to allow for an 8 o'clock finish. We are not leaving much time for the Minister to wind up if the hon. Gentleman is still speaking at four minutes to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Chair is not party to any arrangements but is guided by the rules of the House. I understand that this debate could go on until six minutes to nine. As the
      90
      hon. Gentleman says, there may be some arrangement for the debate to finish earlier, but that has nothing to do with the Chair.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not see that there can be anything further to the point of order, as everything is in good order.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: May I nevertheless ask whether you have had any message from Opposition Front Benchers? Since they think transport is so important, I am sure that they would not want to hold up the debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are always conversations between hon. Members and the occupant of the Chair but, as the hon. Lady knows, they are private.
      Mr. Clappison: In light of that remark, I will do my best to put my contribution in the bus lane. I will fast-track it as well as I can and watch out for ministerial cars coming up behind me.
      We believe that snap inspections have a part to play and could give additional reassurance to parents. Generally, the report suggests a number of refinements which would add to the effectiveness of Ofsted. Parents in particular value high-quality, rigorous inspection of schools, and parents appreciate some of the leadership that has been given in this regard by Ofsted.
      The leadership of Ofsted—to which the Committee refers at the end of the report—has been mentioned today, although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South that the report was structurally driven, rather than personality driven. For our part, we think that there is value in having high-profile leadership which draws public attention to issues emerging from Ofsted's work which must be addressed.
      Transport is very important, but so are some of the issues that we are discussing at the moment. They include the report on primary schools issued by Ofsted at the end of last week, which it is worth remarking—given the comments about the critical character of some reports—drew attention to the progress that had been made over the period of Ofsted's inspections; to the good practice that was going on; and to rising standards in primary schools. The report traced some of the reasons for that—in particular, the reduction in the amount of topic-led discussions, and more whole-class teaching, which can be identified as two vital factors responsible for rising standards in our primary schools.
      Paragraph 215 of the report says:
      "Mr Jim Hudson, Headteacher of Two Mile Ash School, expressed the view that OFSTED itself was well regarded by parents, due in part to the fact that 'HM Chief Inspector has not failed to confront the issues and parents' perception of OFSTED's work has been enhanced in the process'."
      We agree. There is a place for leadership that opens up the issues. Education should not be, as it has so often been described in the past, a secret garden; it should be a place where parents can come in and take an interest, and someone should evaluate schools and reflect their concerns.

      91
      Sometimes the message from Ofsted reassures parents, but there are times when parents need to hear messages that are less reassuring. Parents value Ofsted's work and are keenly interested in what it has to say. We had an illustration of that earlier today in the case of the parents of heather Begbie, who transferred her from a junior school that was said to be failing its Ofsted inspection to the junior school of a leading independent school, and—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a court decision. That is nothing to do with the report and it is not a matter on which I would want him to dwell.
      Mr. Clappison: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I say is that parents will look to Ministers to keep their promises.
      The report is important. It has given Ofsted a clean bill of health while suggesting some refinements to assist it in its valuable work. The Committee deserves congratulation. The report builds on success, so let us not alter the foundations that have brought about that success but instead look for ways in which we can refine Ofsted's work and bring even greater success and higher standards in the future.
      8.2 pm
      The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Let me put on the record my appreciation for the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and the Committee in producing the report. They took on a challenging task, given the nature of the evidence and the enthusiasm of some of those who attended the meetings. They have come up with a thoughtful report, which looks back but which mostly looks forward, to the way in which we can build on Ofsted's success.
      I assure all concerned that the Government will reflect on the report and produce a formal reply in due course, so tonight I will only touch on a few of the points that have been made, especially bearing in mind the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
      This is probably one of those issues on which Government and Opposition Front Benchers will not argue a great deal. That is to some extent a sign of Ofsted's success; it is now part of the education landscape, and our debates are about its future and how to improve it, not about whether it should exist at all. We must remind ourselves that it is not very long since the debate in the education profession outside the House was about whether there was a need for external inspection.
      It is good that everybody in the education service now acknowledges that external inspection is right, helps to identify both weaknesses and good practice and gives us a wealth of information on the basis of which we can make judgments and policies; but as there are still a small—and I believe dwindling—minority of people outside the House who do not believe in external
      92
      inspection, it is right that we should take every opportunity to reconfirm how important it is in the effort to raise standards.
      Mr. Waterson: Can the Minister imagine a Labour Government ever introducing Ofsted?
      Ms Morris: Of course I can. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman could not keep his comments in line with the atmosphere that has pervaded this debate. Ofsted is a good news story. The Labour party never voted against it. It behoves us as a Parliament to improve on the good start that has been made and not to back-track into political point scoring.
      I welcome and endorse the report's comments about the need for external inspection. I want to put on record my thanks to Chris Woodhead and all the inspectors and staff at Ofsted who got it up and running. We all bring our personal style to our jobs, and heaven forbid that senior jobs should be done without any personal style. Because of the opposition from the profession at the start of the process, it certainly needed somebody with the determination and vision of Chris Woodhead to get Ofsted off the ground and ensure that it stayed on track. It is to his credit and that of his staff that we are able to say today that it is rooted in our education system and plays an essential role in it.
      It is interesting to compare my experience of being inspected as a teacher with the experience of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). The difference is that the hon. Gentleman entered the House five years later than I did, so he taught under Ofsted. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and I left teaching in 1992 and we discussed the fact that we had never taught in a school that had had a full inspection. I spent 18 years teaching, and my hon. Friend spent 20—he is clearly a great deal older than me. Somebody mentioned 50 years, but I want to make it clear that that does not apply in our case. I welcome the fact that there are now regular inspections.
      The need to praise teachers is absolutely crucial. There are many outstanding teachers in this country. I join the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in paying tribute to what he and I experienced last night at the national teaching awards, which were a celebration of excellence and a long overdue recognition of the contribution that teachers make day in and day out. I congratulate the winners and all those who entered, as well as the National Teaching Awards Trust and the BBC, which has shown its commitment to public broadcasting at the highest level.
      We must get the balance of pressure and support right. We all do that in our own ways. We know as politicians that criticism makes headlines and praise often does not. When the chief inspector praises schools, as he does each year in the list of outstanding schools in his annual report, it may make regional headlines but it does not make national headlines. I make a plea to those who have responsibility for reporting education news to give as many column inches to the successes as to the criticisms.
      There is a bit in all of us that picks up the criticisms and not the praise. I plead with the teaching profession not to be so defensive and to accept that it, like any profession, will have members who are good and members who are poor. I ask it to rejoice in the success of its good members and to join in criticising the performance of its weak members.

      93
      Two groups of people suffer when we have weak teachers: the pupils and the teachers who have to pick up the pieces when they take the children the next year. I hope that the profession will come to value Ofsted because it pinpoints poor practice and allows good practice to be praised.
      It is important to remember that Ofsted has not stood still since its start. We almost do not need five-yearly reviews. Some of the changes that we have made to the Ofsted system in the past two years include feedback to teachers on lessons that have been observed. That is now in place. We have introduced a limit on the daily amount of observation to which any individual teacher can be subject. Several hon. Members mentioned the reduced notice period—from five terms to two—and that is now in place. The summary reports, which make key information available to parents, are now in place. Inspection reports on the second round can now comment on the progress made since the report on the first inspections.
      Inspection contractors will be named in reports and the details of any areas where they lead will be given. The quality standards for inspections were introduced from September last year. We also have a new complaints procedure that has been strengthened by the appointment of an independent adjudicator. The House will know that the Government have made plans to identify coasting schools, which lurk in the middle of the performance tables and can get too complacent, so that we can determine whether they need to make further improvements. The period of notice for school inspections will be reduced to about six weeks and shorter inspections will be introduced for schools which, on the evidence, are doing well.
      We must remember that Ofsted is constantly evolving, as it should. That fact, together with Ofsted's role as a central part of the education service, is much to be welcomed. I again put on record the contribution that Ofsted and the chief inspector make in working with us so that we can improve the system.
      The Committee's report contains much that we wish to reflect on and take forward. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken mentioned pupil mobility, which is a challenge to which Parliament and those in the education service outside the classroom have only just turned their minds but which teachers have had to cope with for many years. Some of our schools have year groups with up to 70 per cent. pupil mobility in one year. Many of those mobile pupils bring a range of challenging behaviour—some are refugees or do not have English as their first language. Some are mobile because of family breakdown, and suffer from the insecurity that can bring. It must be
      94
      right for an inspection of such schools to recognise those circumstances. We are working with Ofsted so that as we develop the framework we can collect and report information about pupil mobility.
      I also listened carefully to the comments that were made about special schools. I shall reflect on those comments, but the key message must be that we expect as much from children in special schools as we do from children in any other school. I do not want to go back to a system in which one looks for good care in special schools, not robust education. In getting the balance right, we might have been harder than some people wanted, but I will bear in mind the points made by many hon. Members that the measurement of progress in special schools sometimes needs finer judgment than measuring progress in mainstream schools.
      I am not persuaded of the case for snap inspections. One of the features of an Ofsted inspection is the process of preparation for it. I agree that such preparation should not be manic, but schools should have a feeling of anticipation and a wish to get their ship in order before the inspection. Our survey showed that schools welcomed a notice period of four to six weeks. However, in some instances, such as cases of bullying, we might want to ensure snap inspections, so that misdemeanours or poor practice could not be hidden. I will reflect on that point and ensure that such inspections are possible.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, North talked about a professional dialogue. I hope that, as we move into the second round of Ofsted inspections, we will have the opportunity to celebrate schools that have made progress since the first round of inspections. I also hope that we will have an education service—at Ofsted level, at Government, local and national level, and in the classrooms—that can use the inspection service to have the essential professional dialogue that has been needed for so long.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) was right when she said that the Ofsted inspection identifies weakness. It does not by itself raise standards, but by putting weakness into the public domain it leaves it to the rest of us—policy makers and teachers—to ensure that we use that information to raise standards for children. Ofsted plays a key role in that and I offer my thanks to everybody who enables that organisation to run so smoothly and effectively, and my thanks and congratulations to the Committee and all those who have participated in the debate today.
      Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates).

Class III

  Transport
  [Relevant documents: The Ninth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, on the Integrated Transport White Paper, hC 32-I; and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (Cm 4204).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further revised sum not exceeding £25,917,026,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  8.16 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Owing to a serendipitous spelling mistake in the report we have published today, which includes the Government's response to the ninth report of our Committee, on integrated transport, the words of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister have been described not as "Foreword from the Deputy Prime Minister", but as "Forward with the Deputy Prime Minister", which is a useful indication of what is happening to the transport system under the present Government. That is true not least because some people not unconnected with the previous Government have, on the road to Damascus, discovered the transport system. That is a welcome change, but it is not one on which the Government have based their examination of the need for proper planning of the transport system.
  When we talk about an integrated transport system, we tend to talk about individual types of transport without saying that what we need to do is to think seriously about whether our modern society can continue to make a god of the combustion engine. That is not to say that it will be simple to encourage people out of their little tin boxes into alternative forms of transport, or that the car is not needed. It is not even to say that we should take a punitive attitude to one form of transport and ignore the implications for others. It is to say that we have to plan the transport system if we want to tackle congested cities and roads; if we care about the quality of the air we breathe; if we care about children who live in those cities; and if we want a civilised society in which quality of life is related to housing and to the facilities and services available to us.
  This applies across the board, and does not involve merely seeking ways to build more and more roads. The previous Government did that and, when it turned out too expensive, they produced more and more wish lists of what they thought was important in transport.
  We want something very different. We want a rail system—some of it is 120 years old—that is fully integrated with a bus system that has, alas, been allowed to run down. That integrated system should be fully responsive to the needs of elderly and young alike, and not regarded as a second-rate alternative whose importance is demeaned and for which Government expenditure priorities are ignored.
  96
  The Select Committee report looks at all forms of transport and how they should relate to each other. We have considered where more Government money, muscle and urgency should be applied, and we have searched for the positive points that can be gathered from our study.
  I regret that the amount of legislation on constitutional change that has gone through the House has meant that we have had to wait two years to get the Bill establishing the Strategic Rail Authority. That important piece of legislation will come before the House in the autumn, and it will give impetus to the changes that need to be made to the rail system. The Bill will try to bring together all the disparate and warring elements of the private railway system, and weld them into a useful and tolerable pattern. Our railways will thus be improved, and people will be able to travel on safe, clean and reliable trains.
  I hope that the Bill will follow the Committee's recommendations. For example, we believe that the industry should plan to make bus and rail stations information points and the nubs of properly integrated services, and that those stations should be made to relate to each other.
  We believe that we should not think of railways without thinking about the safety of the people who travel by rail, which means enforcement, and ensuring a high standard of cleanliness and safety. Moreover, we should not think of bus services as a transport system in decline, used only by the poor. We should plan to put Government money into rural bus services and better facilities, and thus ensure that they are related, one to another.
  When the Committee asks for more staff to man rail and bus stations for longer hours, we are responding to what so many passengers want. They want better lighting so that they feel safe, and they want to know that all facilities are readily accessible. That is what people want—be they the elderly, mothers with young children, or people who simply need a reliable and punctual service.
  The Government will have to give serious consideration to the powers that the Strategic Rail Authority and the regulators will have. Those bodies will need the power to compel operators to integrate services, which should not be allowed to operate as if they were totally independent of one another.
  Local transport plans will require considerable Government funding. The Government will have to tell those companies taking taxpayer's money that they must produce results. Money must not be used to fund companies that respond by upping payments to shareholders without providing the services that people need.
  Mr. James Gray: Does the hon. Lady agree that interventionism and central planning, such as she has described, are unlikely to achieve the increase in numbers of passengers that the companies need if they are to make the greater profits that she mentioned? It is a mistake to say that the companies are awful because they are trying to make lots of money. The companies are splendid for exactly that reason, as they make money by attracting more passengers to use their trains and buses. In that way, they achieve exactly what the hon. Lady desires.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Unfortunately, many of the companies have grown so used to managing for decline

  97
  that they have not responded to the perceived stimuli of the market, or to the needs set out by local authorities and passengers. It is extraordinary that bus companies must be encouraged to think seriously about the quality of the services that they provide. When I visited my local hospital on Friday, for example, it was a great relief to find that Cheshire county council is using Government money to provide high-quality buses at the times and places that they are needed and of the size required. That should not be a difficult or revolutionary idea: it is a sensible response to the needs of the modern passenger.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is my co-Chairman on the Committee, will want to talk about the aspects of the Government plan that cover the environment, housing and planning. In the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, Chairmen come in pairs, like all good dining room furniture. I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
  The Committee looked at the amounts of money being spent by the Government and the facilities that that money is being used to provide. My reservations about Railtrack are well known, but the Committee studied in great detail the amounts of money that it has promised for investment. We looked at some grandiose plans that boil down to quite small amounts of cash, and we examined the suggestion that Railtrack could invest only if it got matching money from—guess who?—the taxpayer.
  I am afraid that we said some rather harsh things. For instance, we said that we did not think that Railtrack was very entrepreneurial, and that we saw no evidence in the company's track record that it was prepared to put money into the system. We also made it clear that we expected the Government, and especially the new regulator, to look closely at the deals that were being offered. There has to be an end to the assumption—made by all transport companies when they are in trouble—that they can run to the Government for a few bars of gold without being expected to provide results. I look forward, therefore, to the establishment of the new Strategic Rail Authority in the autumn.
  I believe that the Government's plans for light rail will transform many cities. It is extraordinary that people seem to think that there is an advantage to be gained from sitting in a traffic jam. We are allowing our city centres to become more and more clogged because we refuse to plan for any management of the combustion engine; but that does the motorist no favours. Given the increase in car ownership, we cannot continue to allow people continually to use their motor cars when proper alternatives exist. However, those alternatives must be seamless, comfortable, clean and available, and I believe that those aspects of the problem are set out very well in the report.
  It is also rather depressing that Conservative Members should have published today's slightly strange statement about their being the motorist's friends. I understand the reason, but it is sad that those elements of our report that deal with road safety and speed are ignored by the proposals in the Opposition's press statement. It is as if the attainment of lower road accident statistics and the achievement of improved safety are not important. Speed
  98
  kills, and it continues to kill. Those who ignore that fact will be personally responsible for the deaths of many people in future.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Lady has obviously not read the document to which she refers.
  Mrs. Dunwoody indicated assent.
  Mr. Jenkin: She may have a little flyer, but the document in its entirety deals substantially with safety issues. We think that 3,500 deaths on the road every year are far too many. Will she agree, first, that the Government whom she supports inherited one of the best road safety records in Europe? Secondly, does she agree that the slashed investment in the roads programme means that roads will continue to be dangerous that would otherwise have been made safe by these schemes, had the Government continued to invest in them? Who then is responsible for the continuing deaths on British roads today?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance to make his own speech and his own apologia pro vita sua. Frankly, to suggest to motorists that there is an easy way out of congestion by not planning for the future is not only a failure of a political party, but an irresponsible attitude to the use of road transport. However, I have been tempted twice and I promise not to be tempted again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The reality is that the Government think seriously not only about the integration of cycling, walking and the various transport systems, but about freight. In response to the suggestions in our report, they have laid out some sensible plans which most of us will want to be carried out as soon as possible. However, that will require co-operation from the railway system, co-operation in road transport, and a considerable amount of rethinking the role of the city—the way in which and the speed at which we deliver goods, and the manner in which we plan our transport and freight systems. That will require the support and certainly the clear view of the Government.
  I wish to make one or two personal comments in closing. The Deputy Prime Minister has not always had a good press because he insists on making it clear that he believes that transport is fundamental to the economy and planning of the United Kingdom. That is a subject that seems to have been rediscovered only recently. The fact that we have had to wait some time for legislation, even though sums of money have been poured into different aspects of transport, might give the impression that there was no sense of urgency in the Government. I do not believe that that is so.
  When the Deputy Prime Minister goes out of his way to write a foreword to a Select Committee report saying,
  "As we approach the beginning of the 21st century, we are entering a new era in transport policy.
  There is a growing consensus that we cannot go on as we have been",
  he reflects a set of priorities that the Government and certainly the House ought to regard as vital.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend for her characteristic courtesy in giving way. She has mentioned

  99
  safety on more than one occasion. My question relates to maritime safety and to the laudable objective outlined on page 171 of the annual report of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: that of
  "improving safety for those who use the sea for transport, employment or leisure".
  Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the Government's response to her excellent report on the Coastguard agency?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: As my hon. Friend knows, the Committee and I have strong views on the Coastguard service. There will be no safety for the people of this country unless we understand that it is the maintenance of that vital service that keeps us all safe as we use the seas.
  Finally, I am proud of the report. The Select Committee worked hard on it. All members of that Committee contributed considerably. The Government's response shows that they understand that it maps the way forward. Their response is good. Let us now, as it says in the foreword, go forward with the Deputy Prime Minister.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: This is certainly a timely opportunity for a debate on the ninth report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The debate coincides with press reports that the Deputy Prime Minister will keep his transport job and with the Conservatives reaffirming the strength of what they claim is their love for the motorist.
  The previous Administration fuelled the demand for more cars by building more roads. That is clearly identified on page 91 of the annual report of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Between 1979 and 1997, total capital expenditure on roads topped £50 billion, and between 1986 and 1996, almost 1,700 km of motorways and trunk roads were completed. Did that help to ease congestion? Did it help motorists, businesses, pedestrians or the less well off? No, it did not. It only ensured that traffic increased by a total of 75 per cent. over the period.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what would have happened during that period of great economic growth, and hence transport growth, if that road-building programme had not been put in place? What would congestion now be like if we had not built those roads?
  Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. No doubt she will have heard of predict and provide in road building.
  One looks in vain to the Department's annual report for significant measures to tackle congestion. That lack of policy is reflected, at paragraph 62 of the Select Committee's report, by witnesses who gave evidence that current Government policy fails to provide for road traffic reduction.
  Tough choices are being postponed because Galaxy man must be allowed to cruise. That is why paragraph 63 of the Select Committee report describes the White Paper as
  100
  "vague about the rate of traffic growth the Government would consider acceptable."
  That is also why the Select Committee makes no fewer than 76 recommendations about how to tackle the transport crisis that the country faces.
  On the London underground, the public-private partnership is behind time and has been criticised by almost everyone who has more than a passing knowledge of the subject, including academics, business men, Labour MPs and trade unionists. It has also been criticised in a report of the Transport Sub-Committee. Chapter 13 of the DETR annual report highlights that very problem, and states that the London Transport grant will fall to just £81 million in 2001, on the basis that the PPP will kick in at that point. It will not, however.
  The Government' recent White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", and their consultation paper, "Breaking the Logjam", were welcome and made constructive suggestions about how to improve public transport and encourage more cycling. Yet the Select Committee deemed it necessary to highlight, in recommendation (s), that there will be no increase in cycling if it is not made safer, making it impossible to fulfil the requirement to double cycle use in the UK.
  Any Bill will need to achieve four aims: reduce overall traffic levels; produce greater cohesion between modes of transport; give a greater incentive for commuters to use public transport, and allow local authorities to reuse funds raised from road charging for investment in public transport. All those points are contained in the report's recommendations.
  A reduction in overall traffic levels must be the starting point for any integrated transport policy. Everyone recognises the need to do something about congestion and traffic. Yet as I have already stated, that is entirely missing from the Government's plans and the White Paper, though it is highlighted in the Select Committee report. Chapter 7 of the DETR's annual report is unhelpful and refers only to reducing traffic growth.
  The Government have made a two-stage promise: first, to reduce traffic growth and then to reverse it. That was the correct promise, and that is what the Select Committee report calls for. The promise should be kept because of the increase in asthma. There are now 3 million asthma sufferers in the UK, half of whom are children. The DETR has a clear objective on that, and chapter 7 of its annual report says that its work is aimed at improving health.
  The two-stage promise should be kept because of the Government's international pledges, signed in Kyoto, to reduce CO, emissions. In the UK, CO, emissions from road transport are the fastest growing contributor to climate change. In fact, vehicle emissions account for more than one fifth of CO, emissions in the UK. The objective is of course identified in the Department's annual report, which refers to the
  "important contributions to climate change and air quality targets"
  that the transport sector can make. No one must forget that the UK has signed a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gases, and that the Labour party has made a commitment to reducing CO2, emissions by 20 per cent.
  The promises must be kept for these very reasons—and others, such as the need to reduce road congestion. Road congestion costs British industry £15 billion a year, and the annual report does not neglect that. It identifies 37 road schemes that will save £2.35 billion in operating costs, which must be welcomed.

  101
  An obvious point that is often forgotten is that the car, which gives independence to many, does not give independence to the one third of all households that do not have access to one. We know that such households tend to be worse off. So a love affair with the car can be socially regressive. The car does not, as the official Opposition's document that was published today claims, "liberate" those without one. These are the reasons why we must reduce road traffic, as is acknowledged at paragraph 74 of the report.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how reducing the availability of the car and people's access to it will increase mobility and freedom? That seems to be what he is arguing.
  Mr. Brake: That was not the point that I was making. I was referring to the need to reduce road traffic. An exclusive emphasis on the role of the car, neglecting the fact that one third of people do not have access to one, is socially regressive.
  Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brake: I am sure that I would be called to order by the Deputy Speaker if I took too many interventions on the same point.
  We should move towards taxing the use, not the ownership, of vehicles. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree with that key point. We should increase vehicle excise duty for the least efficient vehicles, and abolish it for those that are most efficient. The Select Committee's ninth report is perhaps too reticent on that subject.
  Taxing fuel is fine, but to achieve a reduction in traffic, we must invest in public transport. The motorist must see some gain before a moderate amount of pain. Services and routes provided by different modes of transport must be co-ordinated, and journey terminals should be linked so that switching between bus and train or train and bicycle becomes simple and safe. Many recommendations in the report refer to aspects of such issues.
  We should create a strategic transport authority that has responsibility for both rail and bus regulation. I am disappointed that the Select Committee did not take up that option.
  We must target journeys that pollute the most and which are easiest to reduce in number. That means two things: giving greater incentives to commuters to use public transport, and reducing the number of people who take their children to school by car. Some progress has been made through the safer routes to school initiative, which I hope will be further expanded. The Select Committee did not overlook such points in its report.
  Local authorities have a huge part to play in improving our transport infrastructure. We should allow them to introduce road congestion charging where public transport alternatives are available or under development. Crucially, we must let them keep the revenue from road charging, parking and fines to facilitate reinvestment in public transport. That is covered by recommendation (ppp) of the ninth report.
  We have to enable local authorities to use carrots in their fight against congestion. Local authorities will need the financial resources to introduce pedestrian zones,
  102
  public-transport-only zones, and home zones with 20 mph limits and traffic calming schemes. Without finance, car-free city centres that are pleasant to live, work and shop in will remain a pipedream. That is why I wholly support recommendation (qqq) of the ninth report, which would give local authorities the ability to raise money for investment on the basis of future revenue streams.
  To conclude, I believe that the Government should hold firm to their commitments and respond positively to the recommendations in the Select Committee report. They should not backtrack in the face of a Tory relaunch as the motorist's friend. The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that the measures outlined in the ninth report should be implemented. They would reduce overall traffic levels, increase cohesion as between modes of transport, provide more incentive for commuters to use public transport, and allow local authorities to re-use funds raised from road charging for investment in public transport. But the Government are running out of time, and they need to make an urgent start now.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Graham Stringer: I have spent nearly 20 years arguing with the Deputy Prime Minister about aviation policy, trams and regional policy—agreeing more than disagreeing—but I should like to say, in the light of the disputes that there have been, that this country is very lucky to have a Deputy Prime Minister with his experience and expertise. In his response, he acknowledges that the only significant difference between the Select Committee and the Government is on the speed and the amount of resources, not on the general direction in which the Select Committee and the Government are going.
  I have watched, listened and read with incredulity the statements by the Conservative Opposition in the past week. If I am right, this morning the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was saying that people were rushing to get on buses—that competition in the bus industry had worked. Has he actually read the statistics showing what has happened to the bus industry since deregulation in 1985?
  There has been a 70 per cent. cut in subsidy. When Conservative Members are clamouring for more resources for road building, for railways and for buses, they should remember that, during their time in office, the money that was going to buses in most of the country was cut by 70 per cent.—in London, between 90 per cent. and nearly 100 per cent. During the same period, passenger numbers fell by 30 per cent. and bus miles went up by 30 per cent. I shall return to that point. Fares rose by 25 per cent. in rural areas and 50 per cent. in urban areas.
  In the privatised industry, for 10 years or so there was almost no investment in buses. That destroyed the manufacture of buses in this country; only two factories are left. In fact, the bus industry was a complete mess. We did not get competition at the end of that period; we certainly got a great deal of pollution. That meant extra bus miles and fewer passengers, and as a result the Conservative Government achieved something that one would have thought scarcely possible before their time in office—in many city centres, each bus passenger mile created greater pollution than each car passenger mile. Only the deplorably inefficient system that they had created could have done that.

  103
  The Opposition have been saying that competition in the bus industry is working. Admittedly, in the first two to four years after deregulation and the privatisation of much of the industry, there was huge and inefficient competition on the roads in most urban areas, while buses simply disappeared in many rural areas. Road space in cities was wasted. However, we have now left behind the time when buses were driven dangerously and neither cars nor buses could get along our roads.
  We are in a post-competitive phase. Circumstantial and direct evidence given by competitor companies is overwhelming in every city. It is that there are cartels and anti-competitive practices. From Manchester, for example, reports and evidence were provided to the Select Committee from a number of bus companies. However, the market is dominated by Stagecoach in the south and by FirstGroup in the north. Rarely do these companies compete with each other. Of course, Greater Manchester is a large area and there are one or two smaller companies.
  There have been fascinating interviews. Stagecoach and FirstGroup have been interviewed twice because of their dominant position in the market. Simple questions have been asked. For example, "If Stagecoach has lower fares, better buses, has invested more than FirstGroup, provides a more reliable service and by and large has demonstrated that in Greater Manchester it offers a better service, why does it not compete in the areas of the north where FirstGroup is running a poor, inefficient service with higher fares?" It seems that the company cannot give an answer that would stand up to any criticism. In fact, it is implementing anti-competitive practices. It is almost a cartel. That is to the disbenefit of the travelling public.
  That is why the Select Committee and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in two interviews, are firmly in favour of re-regulating the bus industry. Whether it is quality contracts or re-regulation, when bus companies are operating as I have described and a Government are determined to improve the public transport system by improving bus services, there is a need for regulation. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said, if four or five extra passengers travel on a bus and that brings £400 million into the bus industry—I think that that is the figure—not all of that money will go into transport improvements or helping the passenger. The money will simply be bottom lined. That is why the Select Committee is in favour of regulation of one—
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on why the previous Conservative Government decided not to take the deregulation route for the capital? Why did they decide that London was a special case?
  Mr. Stringer: Having seen the chaos that had been created in the west midlands, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, I think that they decided that there were too many marginal seats in London to make it wise electorally to bring the so-called benefits of deregulation to the capital. Wisely, or for self-interest, that was their decision. London is the only part of the country where passenger numbers have not fallen.
  For the first time since the second world war, there has been a 1 per cent. increase in the number of people using buses. That is extremely good. It has been brought about
  104
  by some of the work done through quality partnerships by various local authorities and passenger transport executives. However, there is scant evidence that motorists are leaving their cars at home or that pensioners or other bus users are using buses more often. Most of the evidence, such as it is, is that those who are already using buses are using them more often rather than people making a modal change. That is important if we are to have the capacity in the public transport system to underpin a thriving economy.
  As for metrolink and trams, there has been a dialogue between the Select Committee and the Government, after two reports, about the benefit of light rapid transit systems. In terms of Greater Manchester, one of their benefits is that they are a proven way getting motorists to leave their cars at home. The Manchester tram system, which is an old rail system connected through the centre of the city, is reducing the number of car journeys per year by 2.5 million. That is a terrific benefit to the atmosphere, to the travelling public and to the motorist. The system is being extended to Eccles, and the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority wants to extend it into north Manchester, to Oldham and Rochdale, into east Manchester out to Ashton-under-Lyne and into south Manchester, to the airport.
  I hope that the Government will find a way to fund the expansion. Eventually the system will be self-funding, but it needs some initial capital, through a private finance initiative arrangement, the public sector or privately. Later, by using car parking charges or some other means, it will balance.
  The benefits to the Government and the travelling public would be enormous. The system would take up to 10 million cars off the road every year and reduce the number of car journeys by 11 million vehicle/kilometres a year. It would create 5,000 jobs and increase the gross domestic product of Greater Manchester by £169 million. It would also benefit the Government by providing an example of an integrated transport system that worked. All of us who care about public transport need that.
  The system that would run into Manchester airport would be the first multi-modal interchange that brought together trams, trains, aeroplanes and buses. It is a national disgrace that only two airports in this country are served by fast main-line trains. A tram link would help to ensure that more people used public transport to reach Manchester airport. I should declare an interest as a former director of Manchester airport and as a former member of the Greater Manchester transport authority.
  I conclude with two points. Some of the proposals in the White Paper are for the medium term and some must be long term. One of the proposals in the present report and in other reports from the Select Committee on future housing projections has stated firmly that we should not use as many green-field sites as we are using. In the north-west there are sufficient brown-field sites on which to build all the houses required for the foreseeable future. If we want fewer transport problems in future, we must ensure that we use those sites. That will increase the density of population in the city. One has merely to do the sums and compare the effect of 1,000 houses 10 miles from the city centre with the effect of 1,000 houses in the city centre to realise the benefit. That is one long-term solution.

  105
  The Select Committee is at present looking into driving tests. We have also considered vehicle inspection and pollution. On every issue that we examine, we find that there is insufficient enforcement, whether in relation to diesel pollution on motorways or cars in cities, where about 20 per cent. of the cars that are badly maintained cause 80 per cent. of the pollution. We are currently receiving evidence that between 800,000 and 2 million people in Britain are driving without driving licences. That is a shocking figure. If there were more enforcement by the Vehicle Inspectorate, the police and all the other enforcement authorities, that would bring about a short-term improvement in the transport situation.
  9 pm
  Mr. James Gray: Serving on a Select Committee produces a curious kind of split personality: one finds oneself liking, admiring, listening to and even becoming friends with those with whom one has fundamental disagreements. For example, it is an honour to serve under the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), whose grasp of sound common sense often makes me wonder how she can possibly be in the same Labour party as some of her hon. Friends. Equally, one respects the knowledge that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) has of Manchester and of the inner cities, although he perhaps knows less of other areas.
  I often tweak the tail of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) because he talks glibly about the countryside even though he lives in central London. He is more at home talking about such things as walking, cycling, integrated transport and cutting vehicle emissions, which are the home territory of the Liberal Democrats, than some of the issues on which he pontificates often in this place.
  The report of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee was technically unanimous. Some of us abstained, but we certainly did not divide the Committee. However, we produced a press release highlighting our fundamental differences with a number of points in the report. The whole point of the report is the search for the great grail of an integrated transport system. Every politician of every party in the history of parties has sought to achieve integrated transport—of course they have. I agree with everything the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said about us having to find ways of integrating trains and buses—of course I do; what sensible person would not? But the trouble with so much that new Labour does is that it concerns not what to do and how to achieve it, but aspirations, launches, glossy new brochures, clever cliches and constant talk about the millennium.
  I am beginning to suffer from millennium fatigue. I shudder to think what I will do the next time a Minister says that we will drive forward into the new millennium and that everything will be different on 2 January 2000, but that is what so much of the integrated transport White Paper is all about. It is not about doing things, what will happen or legislation that will be in the Queen's Speech, but what we would all like to happen—the 19 daughter papers and all that. There are marvellous words and clever spinning, but that does not amount to a row of beans. Of course we did not divide the Committee, because of course we agree with the vague aspirations in the report, but it was important that we put out a press release
  106
  highlighting our differences with the majority of the Committee because so much in it simply does not stack up.
  The Government's response to the Select Committee report, which was issued at some pace this afternoon, equally tends to the aspirational—the "hand everything over to a new Committee" way of looking at politics—rather than to anything realistic. It seems to me, to the papers and to every observer across the nation that their whole transport policy is seizing up in the most extraordinary way, but perhaps that is hardly surprising considering who is running it. Just look at who is in charge: the man whose only claim to any knowledge of transport of any kind at all is that he was a steward on a cross-channel ferry and that he now owns two Jaguars.
  Caroline Flint: Snob.
  Mr. Gray: From a sedentary position, the hon. Lady says that I am a snob. She is quite wrong as I come from a grammar school background. Nothing is snobbish about me, I assure her. My point, which is a powerful one, is that the Deputy Prime Minister has had no experience of any kind of anything to do with transport policy, with the single exception of being an agitator in the National Union of Seamen as a result of his job as a steward on a cross-channel ferry. That is his only experience of transport and that is the point I was making; it has nothing whatever to do with snobbery.
  Mrs. Laing: I fear that my hon. Friend is doing the Deputy Prime Minister a disservice. Yesterday, he increased his experience of transport by travelling by helicopter to Silverstone, while the people whom his party always appears to address were waiting in queues on the motorway.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I understand that, when the Deputy Prime Minister got there, he was so upset by his experience of travelling by helicopter and looking down at the plebs stuck in the traffic that when he went to ask officials how our best driver was doing, he inquired, "How's Damien?". They looked back at him blankly, because he had, of course, mistaken the driver's first name.
  Mr. George Stevenson: If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the contents of the report, why did he not vote against it rather than using the bolthole of issuing a press release, which he now thinks justifies his point of view?
  Mr. Gray: I was happy, in my opening remarks, to try to draw a blind over our reason for not dividing the Committee, but as the hon. Gentleman asks me, perhaps the House will allow me to spell it out in detail. I made it plain to the Committee Chairman that I was determined to divide the Committee, but that, unfortunately, I was unable to be present in the Committee on the day on which the formal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The reason was that I was having a private meeting with a Minister, who refused to move the time of the meeting.
  Mr. Stevenson rose—
  Mr. Gray: I shall not give way as I have just done so.
  I made it plain to the Chairman that, as I was unable to be there, I could not divide the Committee—
  Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: No, I have given way already and we do not have much time to carry on this sort of banter. My party wholeheartedly and fundamentally disagrees with many of the points in the report. As we could not divide the Committee for procedural reasons, we produced a press release to highlight our differences.
  The Deputy Prime Minister, who gets muddled up about the names of our racing buffs, presumably looked down from his helicopter and was unable to spot a bus lane clear of traffic—or a bus lane full of traffic.
  I spotted an interesting paragraph in the Government's response to the Select Committee report. The Committee referred to bus lanes and the Government responded:
  "We agree that comprehensive bus priority measures have a major part to play in making bus travel more attractive and better able to compete with the car in congested areas."
  My goodness, the Government have certainly tried to compete with the car. Presumably, it is all right for those in chauffeur-driven limos to compete with buses by making use of bus lanes, but not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) pointed out, for the rest of us who are queueing to get to Silverstone.
  What happens to people who drive down bus lanes? The Government have helpfully pointed out in the report what should happen to people such as the Prime Minister, who abused his position by using a bus lane. The report says:
  "We agree that bus lane infringements need to be subject to appropriately stringent penalties … infringements cause danger, as well as inconvenience, to other road users."
  I hope that, this evening, Ministers will carry that message, contained in paragraph (uu) of the Government's response to the report, back to No. 10 Downing street and say that it is not acceptable for Government car service drivers to break the speed limit and that they will get busted, just like the rest of us. Neither is it acceptable for them to drive on the wrong side of the road. It is not acceptable, in their words, to use even the "daft" bus lane—which the Deputy Prime Minister introduced—on the M4 on the way into London from Heathrow.
  Frankly, the Deputy Prime Minister is a walking disaster. Perhaps it is just as well that he is walking, because if he were in a car he would be going nowhere fast. Under him comes the Minister for Transport. When we bumped into each other in the Tea Room a moment ago, I mentioned that I would be less than courteous, but I shall try to restrain my discourtesy to her because we all have the highest regard for her abilities in these areas and I mean no personal disrespect to her. However, there is a significant worry about her position in this debate. Constitutionally, she is disallowed from making any remarks about transport in Scotland. As a Scottish Member, the one thing that she may not do is represent her constituents on transport matters. She must leave that to somebody else in holyrood. What does the right hon. Lady do? She comes down here to Westminster and pontificates on English transport—only English transport—which has nothing whatever to do with Scotland. And my goodness, what a mess she makes of it.
  108
  Incidentally, I was interested in the remarks made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on fox hunting. How odd it would be if Scottish Members of Parliament came down to England and voted out the English sport of fox hunting. We shall return to that at another time. The right hon. Lady for Shotts—
  The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Airdrie and Shotts.
  Mr. Gray: I beg the right hon. Lady's forgiveness for getting her constituency wrong. She is the personification of the West Lothian question. In the forthcoming reshuffle, the Prime Minister must address the question of why my constituents in North Wiltshire have a Scottish Member making a mess of their transport system—and my goodness, what a mess the Government are making of it.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman is concentrating on personal and diversionary matters rather than on policy, because he has no policy.
  Mr. Gray: I shall come to policy matters in a moment. My party has today published a policy paper that is full of interesting new ideas, so the hon. Lady is wrong. I should also correct her on one little point. I am not being the slightest bit personal. As I said, I have the highest respect for the Minister for Transport, and I am not being even slightly personal about her. She is in a constitutionally difficult position, because she is down here pontificating to my constituents in North Wiltshire.
  Imagine if the Member of Parliament for North Wiltshire went to Edinburgh and said, "I want to come to the holyrood Parliament and be the Minister for Transport in Scotland. I want to sort out transport in Scotland. I represent North Wiltshire and have nothing to do with Scotland, but I want to pontificate about transport in Scotland." What a fuss there would be from the Labour party if I even suggested that, but that is exactly what has happened the other way round.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is correct to put me right, so perhaps I should move on to the more meaty substance of the White Paper and the Government's response to the Select Committee's report. Other hon. Members will have something to say about other aspects of transport policy, such as the railways, buses, aircraft and airports, where odd things have been happening recently. I want to concentrate my efforts and remarks on the subject of road transport, which the nation has been most interested in recently.
  People have heard the warm words and seen the policy launches—the Green Papers, the White Papers, the Committees and the working parties. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would sort out transport, but people sit fuming in traffic jams up and down the country. People have seen petrol prices go through the roof: they are now as high as those in any other nation in Europe. Road haulage businesses have gone bust, or have been driven offshore because they cannot afford to pay the vehicle excise duty on their 20-tonne lorries. The road transport system is in the doldrums and in the grip of congestion.
  What is the Government's dramatic and interesting new solution to this problem? They propose a variety of taxing proposals: road charging, congestion charging, work place

  109
  charging, and the possibility of retail charging—which the Select Committee proposed, although the Government are not in favour of it, so there is a slight divide between them. How well would those charges work? What will happen if there is road pricing and road congestion charging?
  Imagine that you are a company executive living in a large house in Surrey. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Riverside corrects my use of the word "you", which I am of course using hypothetically. Imagine that one is a fat cat living in a large mansion in Surrey with a large Rolls-Royce and a chauffeur.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman have sufficient memory banks to recall a Government Green Paper called "Transport: the way forward" published in 1996, which had a long section about road charging? It said that the then Government presumed in favour of road charging. Does he remember that, and does he wish to reflect on it?
  Mr. Gray: That has nothing whatever to do with my position. We have always been against extra taxation. In the paper that we published today, we have laid out—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but it is a nervous laughter because they know that they are taxing the motorist off the road. We will not do that, and we are committed to reversing those taxes when we come back into power.
  Never mind the party political points that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) tries to make, let us consider for a moment the practicalities of road pricing and road charging. Let us return to our chief executive living in a mansion in Surrey.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way quite a lot. [Interruption.] Oh, why not?
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it is important that he is aware of his party's policy. All politicians should be aware of their own party's policy. I remind him that the 1996 Green Paper said:
  "The Government will shortly be starting trials to explore whether it is technologically feasible to introduce electronic tolling on motorways. If these trials are successful, new opportunities will become available for shifting the emphasis of the costs of providing the motorway away from fixed towards marginal charges".
  The paper goes on to refer to experiments with road charging, with the presumption in favour of legislation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that, or does he not?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test made precisely the same intervention a moment ago. It is obviously No. 23 on the Labour Whips' list of suggested interventions. The answer is no, I do not agree. Today's policy paper made it perfectly plain that we do not agree, and my press release—which I mentioned earlier, in connection with the Select Committee report—made it plain that we do not agree. We are wholeheartedly opposed to congestion charging, to workplace charging and to retail charging. It is the Labour party that is wholeheartedly committed to taxing the motorist off the
  110
  road—but let us leave aside the party political aspect and discuss the practicalities, as I suggested we should a few minutes ago.
  Mrs. Liddell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I am pretty keen to get on, but of course I must give way to the right hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is developing his theme. Can he tell us how his party intends to make up the shortfall of £10 million that would be a consequence of the document that was published today?
  Mr. Gray: I am afraid that I have no intention of doing anything of the sort, for a very simple reason. What we are discussing is the report of the Transport Sub-Committee on an integrated transport policy, and the Government's response to it. That is the purpose of the debate. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will expand on the point, but it is no part of my business, as a Back Bencher, to do so.
  All this party political banter is fine for those who are on the spot, as the Labour party is. I want to talk about some of the practicalities and details of road congestion, retail and workplace parking charging. It is quite interesting to note the way in which such measures will work. I was talking about a fat cat with a house in Surrey and a business in the City. At present—as the Minister for Transport suggests—he is having a terrible time: he cannot get into London because of congestion. So what does he want to do? He wants to tax congestion off the roads. That is not because he wants to get a train to the City; he wants to get rid of all those dreadful plebs.
  So what are the Government going to do? They are going to do what the Greater London Authority Bill proposes and levy a £5-a-day congestion charge on those who wish to come into the centre of London. The chief executive of a bank in the City may be quite happy to pay £5 a day to be sure that the roads are clear; to a two-Jags fat cat, £5 a day is nothing. However, the Government are talking about the possibility of a workplace charge of £1,000 a year. Again, to the chairman of a bank in the City £1,000 would be small beer. He would pay far more than that to National Car Parks—£2,000 or £3,000 a year. A first-class ticket from Surrey would cost £4,000 or £5,000 a year, so £1,000 a year is nothing at all. But, my goodness—it would matter to one of my rural constituents, who has to drive an F-registered car to his or her workplace in Chippenham, if he or she had to pay £5 a day to get into Chippenham and £1,000 a year in work place charges. The Minister and other Labour Members, who spend all their time talking about London, the suburbs and the middle classes are not thinking about the people on whom the charges will bear down so heavily. The poor, the low-waged, the rural dwellers and the disabled—those are the people whom the Labour party has cast out in its drive towards new Labour policy.
  Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: No.
  Those are the people on whom workplace and congestion charges would bear down particularly heavily.
  Retail charging is another Labour party proposal. Why not try to persuade out-of-town superstores to charge people to go there? What a strange idea. Eighty per cent. of us use supermarkets and buy a large amount of groceries. Indeed, some 320,000 people go to Safeway in Chippenham each week. So what are we to do? Let us charge them.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: Tax them.
  Mr. Gray: That is right. Let us tax them. We cannot have all these people going to supermarkets; let us tax them. First, however, let us ask Safeway to charge them for using its car park. What a nonsense. Retail charging would bring in only 6p per person per year, which will not greatly change behaviour. All this constitutes is a tax on the buyer and a tax on the driver. That is what new Labour is about: tax, tax and tax again.
  Labour Members say that the whole point about the charges is that they will be hypothecated. They will be hypothecated for 10 years, of course; no more than that. After 10 years, the funds will go into the Treasury. During the debate on the Greater London Authority, the Minister for Transport in London talked about how important it was that the mayor should have some revenue. The view is, "We will get the mayor some revenue. We will charge the motorist. That will be marvellous. Tax the motorist and pay the money to the mayor."
  Britain's roads are at a standstill. Britain's transport is in a shambles. The Labour party is to blame. In its paper, the only solution that it can come up with is a few warm words, a few committees, a few shiny bits of paper and tax, tax and tax again. Today, we have come up with a new document that lays out some vibrant, important, interesting and useful proposals for getting Britain's transport going.
  Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I am just winding up my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  Mr. Brake: On that point.
  Mr. Gray: Well, why not?
  Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman was on the subject of useful points that the Conservative document proposes. Are two of them getting rid of traffic humps and stopping local authorities using traffic calming?
  Mr. Gray: No. Of course, those come into the document in a variety of ways, but we talk about removing the fuel duty escalator and getting petrol prices back down to where they should be. We talk about sorting out road freight, which the Government have driven off our roads and on to the continent. We are sorting out the trains and the buses. We are talking about practical and sensible transport policies to get Britain going again.
  Mr. Paul Clark: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Gray: I am sorry. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am winding up my speech.
  112
  All the Government have done so far is bring Britain to a standstill. Their only solution is to tax the motorist off the road. We take a different view.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: For 21 minutes, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has tried to convince the House about why he abstained and saw fit not to have the courage of his convictions about the Committee's ninth report on the important issue of integrated transport policy. I have tried to recall how many sittings he attended. I am not sure; perhaps the record will show us. However, we have had 21 minutes of diatribe, with the hon. Gentleman trying to convince us that he feels strongly about these issues. One would have thought that he would have voted against the report. Nevertheless, that is for hon. Members to judge.
  The Select Committee's report is important. What is worrying and discouraging is that the Opposition have tried to convince the public that the Government's integrated transport policy is anti-car. Of course, it is no such thing and the Select Committee has made it clear that it believes that it is no such thing. It is pro-transport. There is a big difference.
  It is wrong to think that all of us can get in our cars and, particularly in urban areas, use them as we wish—to take our children to school and all the rest of it—without thinking about the effects on the environment, pollution, congestion and all the other issues that we are tremendously concerned about. The notion that those issues can be ignored and that people can simply say, "Government policy is anti-car and the Conservative party is pro-car, so we do not recognise that those things are a problem", seems disingenuous to say the least.
  It is important to recognise that this is the first White Paper on integrated transport for some 20 years—that is my understanding from listening to the evidence to the Select Committee. That suggests that the previous Government, despite all the rhetoric and nonsense that Conservative Members come up with, were a little shy of tackling the problem. We could all play politics with the issue. Although I know that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is quite adept playing politics—but abstains when it comes to voting—I think that he and I could agree that transportation is an extremely important issue.
  The Select Committee's report is an extremely important document in the transport debate. Opposition Members who say that the Government's transport policy is anti-car, in an attempt to devalue the Government's policy and the Committee's ninth report, devalue only the Opposition. Particularly in urban areas, even car owners understand that we cannot use our cars as we wish, to go wherever we like. We realise that car use has knock-on effects and that we have to grapple with transport issues. The report identifies those issues. Moreover, as is right and proper, the report does not agree with every Government transport policy.
  The public will not accept statements that the Government's policy is anti-car. Moreover, claims that it is simply demean the real arguments. We should not play party politics with the issue simply to make political capital, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has tried to do. That will not wash.
  If the integrated transport policy is to succeed in the medium to long term—it is a medium to long-term issue—we shall have to promote public transport, which

  113
  will entail nothing less than a renaissance of public transportation. The report identifies and addresses that issue—which I accept is a challenge for the Government.
  The Government cannot develop and implement an integrated transport policy simply by saying that it will be done. We have not only to develop objectives, but to will and effect their implementation. First, however, we have to ensure that the relevant arguments are identified and made, as the report attempts to do.
  We have to ensure also that, particularly in urban areas, more public transportation is provided as other transport measures are implemented. The report rightly identifies that requirement. As the report states, if we say that there will be restrictions—either fiscal or physical, such as bus lanes—on motor car use, but do not provide public transport alternatives, there is a danger that it will be difficult to make the policy a success. The report says not simply that the Government are right in their policy, but, "We think that the Government's objectives are right, but Ministers have to take certain actions to ensure that people have transportation alternatives."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) mentioned the Manchester area. In my constituency, 3.2 km of motorway have just been built, right through an urban area. At 1992 prices—the previous Government decided to build the motorway—it has cost £40 million per mile. By the time the bills are paid, there will not be much change from £200 million. The experts tell me that, within 10 years, the road will have reached its design capacity—in other words, it will be congested.
  The new A50 is designed to replace the old A50, which runs right through Stoke-on-Trent for some 13 miles, north to south. If we do not use this window of opportunity to develop public transport in that area, we shall have two congested roads in 10 or 12 years, and we shall have spent a quarter of a billion pounds on them. If that is the Opposition's transport policy, they should say so.
  Mr. Paul Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. A new bypass has been developed for the Medway towns, and rightly so. Does he agree that, because of the opportunities afforded by the Government to make sure that regional transport plans are developed, we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to take advantage of these bypasses?
  Mr. Stevenson: The Government's policies are not only working, but providing opportunities.
  To carry out the policy, resources must be made available, as the Select Committee identified. To ring-fence resources for 10 years and to hypothecate them are important. However, as the Select Committee pointed out, that is putting the cart before the horse. We ought to be providing the resources now, and hypothecating them against future revenue streams.
  If we can do that and if we can integrate the Select Committee report into Government policy, we shall have an excellent opportunity—for the first time in perhaps 50 years—to present this country with an integrated transport policy to take us into the 21st century.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a little disappointing to be winding up on behalf of the Select Committee after such a short debate. It was a
  114
  tragedy that the Opposition tried to eke out the first debate to cover up the fact that they had so little interest in the second debate—particularly on a day when they were trying to make policy announcements.
  It was disappointing also that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) felt that he had to make a speech of 21 minutes, again to filibuster. Some of us on the Select Committee have felt sorry for the hon. Gentleman, who came on to the Committee at the start of this Parliament and is still there, whereas five of his colleagues have found their way on to the Conservative Front Bench. Following his speech today, I understand why he is still with us on the Select Committee.
  I want to put on record my appreciation of Professor Peter Jones, who gave sound advice to the Select Committee, and to Kevin Lee, who worked hard to make sure that the evidence was nicely marshalled. I pay tribute also to all those who gave evidence. Select Committees depend on those people outside who take the time and trouble to give evidence.
  We must look back over the previous two years and see what progress we have made on integrated transport. First, there is a recognition by the Government that we must put the environment and transport together. For the past 50 years at least, people have taken travel for granted. The assumption has been that travel is easy and that if one does a little more, it does not matter. We must recognise that it does matter, and that we cannot go on increasing the amount of travel that people do without thinking about it. If we are to integrate transport, the first thing we need is joined-up living. We have to try to ensure that as many people as possible, for as much of the time as possible, can live, work, shop, enjoy their leisure and take their children to school locally, without the need for expensive travel.
  If we can get that message across over the next few years, we can make most people's quality of life far better, reducing congestion and pollution and making travel far easier. That point is at the heart of the Government's thinking and of their proposals for integrated transport, and the report emphasises it very strongly: it is the way forward.
  We must not only ensure that services are available locally, but encourage people to buy local produce. I am not a great beer drinker, but it strikes me as significant that when I became a Member of Parliament 25 years ago, most of the beer drunk in Greater Manchester was brewed there, whereas most of the alcohol drunk in Manchester today rattles round the country, round Europe or even across the world. Has that choice been worth the extra pollution? Would not it be far better to buy local produce than stuff that has moved all round the world?
  I believe firmly in the fuel escalator, and in congestion charging and charging for workplace parking; but if charging is to work, people must see the results at the point at which the charge is made. The Committee considered the example of the Netherlands where, to make the fuel escalator acceptable, income tax went down as the escalator went up. I do not mind what the Government come up with—it could be a reduced television licence for pensioners—but we must have some direct, hypothecated measure to go with the escalator, so that people can see that the tax is designed to change people's behaviour and not simply to raise money for the Treasury.

  115
  We must do much more to encourage people to do their own bit. Simply recognising that the speed limit should be enforced by us, and not by external means, would make a huge difference. Experiments on the M25 showed that if people travelled at lower speeds, but managed to retain those speeds throughout the journey, they got there quicker than if they went fast and then slow.
  It is crazy to build speed humps in urban areas when, if we could simply persuade people to stay within the 30 mph limit, the roads would be far safer. One of the weaknesses that the Committee identified when it considered integrated transport was the failure to bring the home Office on board and to convince the police that they have a major role in ensuring that transport laws, such as those on bus lanes, are enforced.
  I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) that bus lanes and the quality of our bus services are essential to getting people back on to public transport. It is sad that there seems to be a class element that makes some people reluctant to travel on buses; interestingly, Manchester's experience shows that there is no such reluctance to travel on trams. Manchester already has significant metro lines and it would make a huge contribution to solving its transport problems if we could increase that critical mass.
  The Select Committee report was good and the Government's response is excellent, but my constituents want to see an improvement in public transport now, not in 10 years' time.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I might spoil the day for the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) by welcoming many of his comments. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the connection between transport and the environment—a connection that we made in our period in office and emphasised in the 1996 Green Paper. He is also right to talk about the need for joined-up living, and there is much to be commended in Lord Rogers's recent report on the urban renaissance, as he calls it, especially when it comes to ensuring that we build on brown-field sites. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) mentioned that issue, and we share his concern about protecting the environment and creating the critical mass in urban centres so that transport can be efficient and public transport can work effectively.
  I also share the view of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that we should consume more local produce, not less. That means, perhaps controversially, challenging the direction in which supermarkets have taken us. I am a strong supporter, for example, of the new farmers' market in my constituency in Colchester. That is the way that consumers, environmentalists and all of us want to go.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was being a little more controversial than he realised when he talked about the need for overall fiscal neutrality in the tax changes on fuel, because that is certainly not his Government's policy. I also agree with him about the need to educate people about safety on our roads, especially the need to cut speed. Enforcement and speed humps are not necessarily the instant answer to every dangerous stretch of road.
  116
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is also right in emphasising the need for quality public transport. On buses, it is hard to offer that quality, and tram systems, such as the Manchester metrolink—which was built under the Conservative Government—are the right way forward for public transport. We need a proper commitment to public transport as alternatives to the car. Unfortunately, the report, which was co-authored by the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the rest of the Committee, does not reflect such objectives as dispassionately as they would like.
  The report is disappointing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the issue of taxation. It is sad that the Government's policies are characterised by their taxing motorists more and more for less and less benefit to the travelling public than we have ever seen before.
  The really disappointing feature of the report is that it is stuck in a time warp. It is fighting the battles of the 1980s, which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich should know she lost. She lost the arguments about bus deregulation and competition, and rail privatisation. The evidence shows that transport investment is increasing in the industries privatised by the Conservative Government, which include airlines, airports, buses and coaches, and the railway—investment in which has doubled since it was privatised. Those areas are seeing investment, growth and success and we can look forward to a better future.
  Mr. John Cryer: The hon. Gentleman talked about investment in the railway network. What does he say about the eight railway lines—at least—that face cuts under privatisation?
  Mr. Jenkin: I would look at the evidence. Annual investment in the railways has doubled since privatisation. We want that investment to grow, as the railways are not yet good enough. Even Sir Alastair Morton, the rail supremo appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister, has said that it was always going to take 10 years after privatisation to get the railway system working. That view has been endorsed by the Government.
  The growth in investment in all the modes of public transport that we privatised contrasts starkly with the catastrophe in the transport system for which the Government are responsible. Investment in the tube system has been slashed, after the Government cancelled the Conservative Government's investment plans. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but I would not be laughing if I were a tube commuter. I seem to have provoked the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), so I shall let him have a go at intervening.
  Mr. Clive Efford: My question is quite simple. Why did the previous Conservative Government cut £320 million from tube investment just before the 1997 election?
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures. During the previous Government's last year in office, more than £943 million was invested in the tube. At today's prices, that is equal to more than £1 billion. This Government have halved that investment. The hon. Gentleman may say that the Government inherited the

  117
  Conservatives' plans, but our plans were premised on billions of pounds of new investment arising from privatisation. The Government have dithered for more than two years with their dotty public-private partnership. The present shameful closures are a sign that the tube is getting worse under this Government, and if the hon. Gentleman tries to blame it on us he is just shirking his responsibilities.
  Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: No. The hon. Gentleman has been squashed, and that is enough of that.
  I say to the Minister that we need more investment in public transport. That investment was secured in the industries that we privatised, but the Government's public-private partnership is a fiasco. The Minister should apologise to the people of London, who suffer every day from worsening congestion. [Interruption.] I can hardly hear myself think for the Minister shouting hysterically at me from a sedentary position.
  Madam Speaker: Order. We want no comments from sedentary positions.
  Mr. Jenkin: We want investment in public transport and in alternatives to the car. We want there to be more choice so that there are alternatives to the car. However, the most fundamental problems that the Government have failed to address are traffic growth and congestion on our roads.
  It is one thing to plan for alternatives to the car 20 years ahead, and to accomplish all the projects that the previous Conservative Government started. Those strands of thinking are evident in the Government's transport White Paper. It is quite another thing, and absolutely daft, simply to deny that traffic growth exists, slash the roads programme and expect the problem to go away. That is what the Government have done, however. Theirs is the most irresponsible and congestion-generating programme that could be conceived. As an act of deliberate policy, the Government have cut the programme of road improvements that would have relieved the congestion.
  As we approach the close of the debate, one figure in the Government's estimates needs to be put in context. The Government—supported by a Select Committee which is, I am sorry to say, more concerned about propping up a failing Deputy Prime Minister and a failing Government with a failed transport policy than with its proper task of scrutinising the Executive—are fond of claiming that they are putting extra money into transport. We are told that the Government are putting an extra £1.8 billion into public transport, but we should examine the figures in the comprehensive spending review. That review shows that public spending on transport last year was £4.7 billion. This year it is £4.6 billion, and next year it will be £4.5 billion. The amount is therefore declining—the Government are cutting public transport investment.
  That is the Government's policy. They have not only cancelled private investment schemes for the tube and the national air traffic control system—another scandal of which the Minister is in charge: they are cutting investment in those very transport networks that they claim to favour. They claim that public transport is their great priority, but they are taxing road users more and
  118
  more. They are planning more and more taxes, so the road user will be fleeced, but less and less will be spent on public transport.
  That is the catastrophe that the Government are visiting on the travelling public. The Government know that they should be ashamed of themselves. The Prime Minister knows that he is ashamed of his Deputy Prime Minister.
  It is about time that the Minister for Transport, who is to reply, made a constructive contribution to the debate instead of thinking about getting back to Scotland.
  9.50 pm
  The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): We heard an interesting comment from the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) as he concluded. He seems to think that there is something wrong with hon. Members representing and taking an interest in their constituents. I wonder whether some of my colleagues in Essex might care to draw that to the attention of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for her helpful contribution at the beginning of the debate and I also thank her co-Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The Select Committee has put a considerable amount of work into the report and I commend all members of the Committee for the work that they put in—even those who could only abstain and who could not attend to cast a vote at the appropriate time.
  In making that interesting point about the previous Government being on the road to Damascus, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich missed out some of the U-turns that they have been doing on that road, as we saw today. That fact was very much summed up in the speech by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who failed to recognise that the quotations that my hon. Friends were using were from the 1996 Conservative Green Paper. He also failed to recall that devolution means that transport is largely a reserved matter—only a few aspects of transport are devolved.
  Let us get away from the collective amnesia of the Opposition this evening. Sometimes, I think that they must belong to some obscure cult where a button is pressed and they completely forget their past.
  In many of her arguments, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich underlined the importance that the Government attach to transport, which was sadly neglected by the previous Government. That fact is underlined by the Opposition's statement today. Indeed, they have not explained how they would meet the £10 billion shortfall that has been exposed in their plans today.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mrs. Liddell: I am sorry, I only have a limited time.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mrs. Liddell: All right, I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. She has just given the game away. The Government are going

  119
  to raise an extra £10 billion from the hard-pressed motorist, over and above what a Conservative Government would endeavour to raise. That is clear blue water between her policy and mine and I am proud of it.
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman obviously has a bad attack of collective amnesia again. He is forgetting who introduced the fuel duty escalator.
  Under this Government, we have seen 1,000 more train services every day, 16 new train stations, 70 new freight terminals and 1,500 new and enhanced bus services in rural areas. Bus investment is 80 per cent. Higher than it was five years ago and rail investment is 33 per cent. Higher than two years ago. We have also seen 37 new road schemes—including real bypasses—rather than the fantasy wish list that we got from the previous Government.
  Some important points were made during the debate.
  Mrs. Laing rose—
  Mrs. Liddell: I am sorry, but I am under pressure of time and I want to answer some of the questions posed during the debate, so I will not give way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich asked about security and enforcement on the public transport network, which the Government take very seriously. Indeed, we referred to it in our response to the report, both with the secure stations initiatives and also in our desire for much greater interchangeability, co-operation and co-ordination between all modes of transport—that extends to enforcement, too.
  We have also issued guidelines for operators about personal security on public transport which offer advice on the role of staff. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich would accept that exact staffing levels are a matter for the individual companies. We are also providing £150 million over three years for closed circuit television and the infrastructure to enable it to operate successfully. This year, we shall commission research into improving personal security at bus stops and bus stations. That is very important to the travelling public, who understandably want a journey that is not only pleasant but safe.
  My hon. Friend was very scathing, as she always is, in her remarks about Railtrack. She is aware that the Government share her view and the Committee's caution about Railtrack's 1999 network management statement. She referred to the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority and the change that it will make to the fragmentation of the railway caused by the haphazard and ill-thought-out privatisation by the previous Government. We already have evidence from the National Audit Office which demonstrates what a giveaway Railtrack privatisation was.
  120
  We shall expect the new regulator, which will have new powers, to take appropriate action to ensure that Railtrack complies with all its obligations. That will be a considerable improvement, and we look forward to seeing the shadow Strategic Rail Authority—followed by the actual authority, when it is formally underpinned by statute—being able to implement more significant regulatory powers.
  There is a sense of urgency in the Government about transport because it is a quality-of-life issue that affects the vast majority of people in this country. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is proud of the report; she has every reason to be proud.
  Several points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred to the increase in asthma in the population. I thought it was interesting that the document published by the Conservative party made little reference to the impact on the environment of pollution. Each year, 23,000 people die prematurely from diseases that are directly related to pollution. Is it not interesting that one of the proposals in the Conservative party's document is to remove vehicle excise duty on cars that are more than 25 years old? Those are the very cars that cause the most pollution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) made several points, particularly about the Manchester metro. I am very interested in its development, and I look forward to further proposals for its extension. He also talked about the bus industry. I reiterate how anxious the Government are that there should be quality partnerships, leading to quality contracts that are underpinned to ensure that the general public get the best possible deal from the bus network. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the bus system must not become one that is used only by the poor. It is a key aspect of ensuring that we have an integrated, effective transport policy.
  The hon. Member for North Wiltshire seemed, as usual, to be exhibiting his split personality. I was saddened by the snobbishness that he displayed about the Deputy Prime Minister. After all, the hon. Gentleman was a maritime broker who had never been on board a ship. As a son of the manse, it illbefits him to be so snobbish and to espouse the politics of envy, as he has done tonight. He pointedly has not listened to the proposals that the Government are developing.
  This has been an interesting debate on a detailed report in response to the integrated transport White Paper. The Government have made a commitment to work in partnership to promote an integrated transport policy. I commend those who took part in the discussions and I look forward to the implementation of that policy by a Government who believe in integrated transport, public transport and a fair deal for the motorist.
  It being Ten o' clock, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions which she was directed by paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) to put at that hour.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1999–2000

  Class I, Vote 4
  Resolved,
  That a further sum not exceeding £59,500,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England on administration and inspection, including the inspection of schools and other educational institutions, funded nursery providers and local education authorities.

  Class III
  Resolved,
  That a further revised sum not exceeding £25,917,026,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question required to be put by Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, etc.).

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1999–2000
Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £97,900,070,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 2000, as set out in HC336, 337, 338, 520 and 684.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Alan Milburn, Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Ms Patricia hewitt do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL
Mrs. Barbara Roche accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1999 and 2000: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 135.]

FOOD STANDARDS BILL [Ways and Means]
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(b),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Standards Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Betts.]
10.2 pm
Mr. James Paice: I am sorry that the Government chose to move the motion formally.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has kindly written to me and the rest of the members of the Committee considering the Food Standards Bill to explain a series of amendments and a new clause that he has tabled, and which have given rise to the need for this Ways and Means motion.
I hope that the Minister will tell us some of the reasons why we are facing such a shambles in the financial aspects of the Bill. We are talking about very large sums of money—close to £300 million. Most of it, we have always been told, was to be met by the taxpayer. The £90 per business levy was to raise £41 million. We have said before and we say again that we very much welcome the Government's back-down as a result of the widespread anger at the imposition of that charge. The Minister and the Department have had to eat humble pie.
On 22 April, the Minister said:
"We seek an accommodation and a method of charging that is seen to be fair and acceptable to the industry and to the wider public … some new money must be raised, otherwise there will be no Food Standards Agency. The question is how we collect that extra money"—[Official Report, 22 April 1999; Vol. 329. c. 1037–38.]
On 20 May, he said:
"Unless the levy raises some £40 million we will not have a Food Standards Agency. Therefore, we have to raise that sum".—[Official Report, 20 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 1206.]
We have seen how the Government have had to back down—they are not raising that money, they are taking it, too, from central public expenditure. Of course, that was not the first time the Minister has found that speaking straight, for which he is renowned and for which we normally show our appreciation, causes him some difficulty.
After Second Reading, there was a money resolution. Now that the Bill has been in Committee for two weeks, the Minister proposes to remove an entire clause that deals with the financial basis of the Bill and to replace it with another, which has given rise to the need for this motion.
The justification for that shambles, given in the letter that the Minister has sent to the Committee, is:
"we are entering into new territory post-devolution".
Well, any witness to the Committee's proceedings will understand that. There is total and absolute confusion over the impact of devolution on the Food Standards Agency relating to the issues of accountability, advice and ministerial power.
However, devolution was legislated for a year ago. The White Paper was produced about 18 months ago. The draft Bill appeared six months ago, yet now, near the end of the Committee's consideration of the Bill, we are being asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution to sort out yet
124
another bit of shambles because a few weeks ago, when the Government introduced the Bill, they could not sort out what the financial implications of devolution were going to be.
Now we are told in the Minister's letter to us all—an amazing couple of sentences—that part of the amended provisions
"does not however require"
the devolved Administrations
"to pay money to the Agency … though if they fail to pay an appropriate share, there are arrangements in the devolution Acts whereby the Treasury could recover money from them to make up the short-fall."
Advocates of devolution and those who believe, for example, that the powers of the Food Standards Agency in Scotland now fall to the Scottish Parliament would be very surprised to read that they are going to pay for the agency, like it or not.
Before the Opposition help the Minister out of his muddle, I hope that he can give us some answers. It appears from his letter to us that the Scottish, Welsh and national insurance moneys will effectively be top-sliced off the amount of money going to those authorities. That is the opposite of devolution. But if that is the case, what will happen about England? how much money will come from England and how much will come from Scotland, from Wales and from Northern Ireland? Will the amount of money that each pays be calculated on a per capita basis? If not, how does the Minister justify any alternative approach to dividing the money?
Where is the English money coming from—not just the large sum that is already allowed for in public expenditure, but the extra £41 million that was due to come from the levy? What will be the impact on the planned spending limits for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of health? Now that the agency is to be funded directly from the Treasury, can the Minister assure the House that neither MAFF nor the Department of health is to have its plans cut in order to find the money? Do the £1.207 billion allocated to MAFF next year and the £43.271 billion allocated to health still stand? Or are we going to find those sums cut in order to pay that money? How many of our hospitals may go unbuilt or how many operations may not be carried out in order to find that money? The House deserves to know where the Government are finding that money.
We already know that ministerial largesse—or, indeed, extravagance—means that cuts will be made elsewhere. Very recently, the ever rising cost of the BSE inquiry led to cuts in research and the grants to various aspects of the fishing industry.
Equally, the Minister should explain what the impact would be if Scotland decided to go it alone. He has told us in Committee that the Scots and the Welsh have debated the matter and accepted that the agency is to be a UK-wide agency. That is fine. But part of devolution means that—as I am sure the Minister will accept—they could decide to change their mind at some stage. When they took those decisions recently, were they told what the cost to them would be? If they were, why is not the House being told? Will we be told tonight?
If the Scots and the Welsh change their mind, what will happen about the money? If Scotland, for example, decides to take back all the devolved powers relating to

125
food safety and food standards, will it automatically be reimbursed the money that it would have paid? If it is not being charged on a per capita basis, does that mean that England will be left carrying a bigger share, or perhaps a lesser share?
The Minister has so far avoided answering a series of questions, partly by trying to get the motion through on the nod. These are important questions to which the House deserves answers. I hope that this evening the Minister will take the opportunity to give us accurate answers to all the points that I have raised. We shall feel able to support the Government only if that is what happens.
10.10 pm
Mr. James Gray: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), I have real concerns about the Bill's financial implications. It is right that we should have the opportunity this evening of scrutinising what the Government have done.
We join the Government in welcoming both the Food Standards Agency in itself and the principle that lies behind it. We believe that it is right that its main objective should be protecting the public from food risks. However, the initial decision to impose a flat-rate charge to fund the agency was ridiculous. It is only right that it should have been dropped, thanks, to a large degree, to pressure from the Opposition. The thought that small shops should be penalised for the hefty annual levy was unsustainable. I am amazed that the Government came up with the notion in the first place, and I am delighted that they have been persuaded to drop it.
We were to have an agency that would be part funded by the very people on whom the agency might later pass judgment. That would have undermined its integrity. I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on having pointed out the difficulties. They initiated a petition, raised a popular move against that way of funding the agency, and persuaded the Government to fund it out of taxation.
Despite the removal of the fundamental problem with the way the agency was to be funded, I have three fundamental concerns about the financial aspects of the agency. There may be—I use "may" carefully—a worrying conflict when it comes to the funding of the Labour party by sectors within the food and drink industry. After all, the agency will regulate those very sectors, and the people within them may be making substantial contributions to the Government party.
When the Minister replies, I hope that she will tell us whether some sort of register of interests will be set up for the FSA, declaring who is making contributions to the Labour party among those whom it is attempting to regulate—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the motion. His remarks are interesting, but I would be grateful if he would confine himself to the motion.
Mr. Gray: I shall do so, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will. I am following his remarks very carefully. I have allowed him a great deal of latitude but he must now contain himself.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for your latitude. There were important points to make, but I accept what you have said.
126
The most fundamental and central worry about the financial aspects of the Bill concerns devolution. If the Scots want to run their own food policy, fine. It is up to them. However, surely it is only right that they should pay for it. Why should English taxpayers subsidise a Scottish Parliament that is able to alter the advice of the Food Standards Agency? Visitors to Scotland will potentially be eating food that has not been prepared in the same way or to the same high standard as food that they would expect to eat south of the border—I am not referring only to haggis.
We are all well aware of the Scottish Parliament's tax-raising powers. If the Government are to insist on devolution when it comes to FSA advice, and if it is right that the Scottish Parliament should be given the right to ignore and breach the principle of the agency's being a UK body, let the Scottish Parliament raise its own funds to pay for that Scottish advice.
As so often when it comes to devolution, the Government's approach is entirely inconsistent. It is extraordinary that they are proposing to set up advisory committees for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, but not for England. That is odd. The Linlithgow question raises its ugly head time and time again when it comes to devolution. Here we have it with the Food Standards Agency. Why should there be advisory committees for the three other nations but not one for England? If the Food Standards Agency is to be set up simply as an advisory committee for England, the Minister must say so tonight and end the pretence that there is to be a single UK body.
Why should the English taxpayer be expected to foot the bill for setting up all those committees, when none of them will be accountable to this Parliament? Why should my constituents in North Wiltshire pay for the Scottish advisory committee, when that committee will not be accountable to them through me, their representative in Parliament, or my fellow English Members of Parliament?
If we are to have an annual debate in Parliament on the annual report of the Food Standards Agency, who will answer for the Government and who will be responsible for the agency as a nationwide body? No one. The Minister will be able to answer only for the agency and its work in England. There is a substantial anomaly which I hope that the Minister will deal with when he winds up the debate.
My third concern about the agency serves as a word of warning for business in a wider sense. The Institute of Directors reported today that the Government have already cost British businesses at least £5 billion. Although I welcome the fact that the agency will be funded out of general taxation, I hope that the Chancellor will not be able to change his mind about that in future. It is important that the Minister should confirm that the method of funding the agency is now set in stone, and that at no stage in the future may the Chancellor once again introduce a levy on business. Furthermore, I hope that the Food Standards Agency will not go on to increase costs unreasonably for those involved in food production, on whom there is already a heavy burden.
The Government's natural inclination seems to be to introduce taxes by stealth. I am glad that we persuaded them to drop the stealth tax on corner shops and food retailers. None the less, the Bill has many financial implications that worry the Opposition considerably.
10.17 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support the questions posed by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
The resolution before the House is somewhat unexpected. On 21 June, the House passed a money resolution couched in the ordinary terms, which provided the necessary parliamentary cover for the expenditure incurred by the agency under the Bill, should it be enacted, and also provided cover for expenditure incurred by Ministers under the Bill, should it be enacted. Now we face a Ways and Means resolution which provides for the cover necessary to pay money into the Consolidated Fund.
Therefore, my first question to the Minister is why, at this late stage of the Bill's passage through the House, it is necessary for the House to be asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution, when apparently it was not necessary to pass a Ways and Means resolution at the time of or before the money resolution. The relationship between the money resolution and the Ways and Means resolution needs to be clarified. Why are we being asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution tonight?
I understand, because of course I had consultations before the debate, that this has something to do with new clause 8. All right. I have read new clause 8. The House will expect the Minister to tell us why new clause 8 is triggering a Ways and Means resolution. What is it about new clause 8 that triggers a Ways and Means resolution? I do not understand.
I shall be interested to know, too, why late in the day and in Committee, new clause 8 was tabled when, so far as I can see, there was a perfectly serviceable clause 39. One of the questions that we expect the Minister to answer is why new clause 8 has been tabled now, when we had a perfectly serviceable clause 39, which has been taken out of the Bill. Why?
That leads us to the question set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire regarding money. We have asked why; now I want to ask where the money is coming from and how much.
Where is the money coming from? I expect the Minister to tell the House in detail and in respect of each head of expenditure—to which, Madam Speaker, I shall come in a moment—whether it is additional money or existing money within programmes that is being transferred over. If the latter, am I right in supposing that there will be a public expenditure survey transfer? The House is entitled to an answer on that matter.
Critical to all that—a point that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for North Wiltshire—is how much money is involved. A useful guide to that difficult calculation is to be found in the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 21 June. At that stage, he itemised the agency's functions and I have nothing against them. I would have skinned the cat in a slightly different way, but I am perfectly willing to accept that he has a perfectly good case in favour of the Food Standards Agency.
I have nothing against the agency, but I should like to know how much each of its functions will cost. That is pure curiosity—parliamentary control, it is called—but when I read Hansard I find no estimate of any kind of how much it will cost. That is lamentable. Indeed, the
128
money resolution was taken on the nod, without Ministers vouchsafing an assessment of cost, so this is the opportunity for those on the Treasury Bench to tell us how much. I recommend the Minister to follow me as we go through the functions, because each head of expenditure deserves to be separately costed.
In the third paragraph of column 787, we find the Minister setting out the appointments, the creation of the board, the payment of board members and the necessary infrastructure. How much will that cost, pray? Is new money involved or will the money come from an existing programme? Will there be a PES transfer? At the bottom of column 787 one finds the bald statement:
"The agency's functions lie at the core of the Bill."
Indeed they do. We find that those
"functions will include drafting and making recommendations on legislation, negotiating in the European Union and internationally on behalf of Ministers"
and so forth. How much will that cost, please? Will the money come from the existing programme or not?
At the bottom of column 788, the Minister said:
"The agency will provide effective advice to those who prepare and sell food."
I am jolly glad that the advice will be effective rather than ineffective, but we are entitled to know how much that will cost and whether the money will come from the existing programme spend or not. In column 789, he said:
"The FSA is an enforcing agency".
That is normally a fairly expensive business and we want to know how much that enforcement will cost. I imagine that the cost will be fairly considerable, or the thing is not worth doing in the first place. How much money is involved and where will it come from? The House is entitled to know.
Half way down column 790, I find that the
"entire Meat Hygiene Service is being transferred to the agency."
That will be a whacking great cost—how much? Where will the money come from? Will there be a PES transfer? At the top of column 791, I find that the Minister said that he wanted to
"draw attention to the significant budget that the agency will have for commissioning and carrying out its own research and surveillance."
That was very good of him, but he did not quantify the budget or tell us how much it was. He merely said that the agency will have a budget. I should like to know how much it will be. I find in column 792 that the Bill
"provides for the agency to operate throughout the food chain"
and that it will
"have an input into other farm-related decisions that affect food safety."—[Official Report, 21 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 787–92.]
That sounds pretty expensive to me. Again, we are entitled to know how much.
I am pleased to let the Minister off the hook at this point. I understand that the Bill provides the basis for the agency to publish its advice and information to Ministers, and so forth.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Given my right hon. and learned Friend's experience of procedure in the house, will he tell the House whether it is normal to table a Ways and Means motion in respect of a new clause that has not even been put to the relevant Committee?

129
I understand that the new clause was tabled on Friday and the Committee will have its first opportunity to debate it tomorrow.
Mr. Hogg: To be fair to the Government, if it were necessary for them to table new clause 8, and if it is fundamentally different from clause 39, in all probability it is necessary, in procedural terms, to come forward with a Ways and Means motion—otherwise, to be honest, they would not be doing so.
The central question is, why have the Government got themselves into such a mess in the first place? What is it about new clause 8 that is so successful and attractive that clause 39 becomes irrelevant and should be disposed of? That is the key question, which we want the Minister to answer.
I am conscious that you, Madam Speaker, would not want me to rabbit on at this late hour and that many other hon. Members want to speak. It is very important that the Minister gives us a comprehensive answer and we look forward to hearing what he has to say.
10.27 pm
Dr. Peter Brand: I do not want to prolong this debate, because it is getting late.
Dr. Julian Lewis: We have all night.
Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman may have all night.
It is important to put on record that the Liberal Democrats support the Food Standards Agency, which is being set up to protect the public. The public have the right to have the agency funded out of public funds rather than, as has been suggested, by a levy. I am pleased that the Government have got into a bit of a muddle and that this has not all been pre-scripted, because it shows that there has been some flexibility on their part and that they have listened to some of the points that have been made, not only in the Chamber, but in Committee.
If we want the agency to be successful—if anything, I am worried that it is underfunded, rather than overfunded—we must vote the means for it. We shall therefore support the ways and means motion.
10.28 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): In the time available, I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that have been asked. However, virtually all the questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) are, as he well knows, answered by documents available from the Vote Office and have been no secret whatever. To take his point about research, the figure has not changed since we published the White Paper in January 1998. It is approximately £25 million. It is not new money, it is the existing spend transferred to the agency. Indeed, that is the case with most of the money involved.
I want to put on the record, for hon. Members who are naturally suspicious of the Government, that this is not a back-door method of raising new money. It is not even a front-door method, because it is not new money. Neither is it in any way, shape or form a system for raising a new
130
charge or a levy in disguise. The Ways and Means motion is purely a technical requirement, arising out of the amendment to the Bill. I shall explain why the amendment is required.
We must ensure that the financial provisions in the Bill correctly reflect the post-devolution position, which was not possible to plan and forecast. Thus the amendment does nothing new to the Bill. It does not change the policy, which we set out after several rounds of consultation. It introduces no new charges or new powers to charge. That is clearly and specifically spelt out. It puts right some technicalities, which were not quite right in the Bill simply because of the new devolution arrangements.
We made it clear in the White Paper from the outset that we wanted the Food Standards Agency to be a United Kingdom body in a devolved context. That makes sense, because it is clearly better, more efficient and in the interests of consumers and business to have consistent advice on food safety and standards across the UK. Food safety is a devolved matter: the House decided that when it agreed to devolution last year. We built into the Bill the necessary arrangements for ensuring that the agency will be accountable to the devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to the UK Government and this Parliament, while remaining a UK body.
We have made no secret of the fact that the devolved authorities will retain their freedom to legislate differently if they wish. It is ultimately for them to decide, according to local circumstances. They will all obtain advice from a common source: the agency. The agency will be the shared responsibility of the four devolved authorities and the House. That policy was endorsed by the new Scottish Parliament, to the best of my knowledge with the votes and support of its Conservative Members.
Mr. Eric Forth: So what?
Mr. Rooker: I am merely making the point. It was also endorsed by the National Assembly for Wales.
Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way because I want to get this on the record.
Members of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales recognise the advantages of proceeding on a common basis. It is ironic that the first decision of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament was to create a UK body. They did so freely, knowing the circumstances and recognising the positive advantages. However, we do not take their continued participation for granted, so there are provisions in the Bill to deal with the consequences should either Scotland or Northern Ireland decide in future to exercise their legal right to withdraw and have separate arrangements. I do not think that that is likely. We have established excellent working relations, and they are a model of how we should continue with our common interests under devolution.

131
We must recognise the fact that we have a devolved system of government. We need to ensure that the financial arrangements for a UK body in a devolved area work properly. That is the reason for the amendment, which is the subject of the motion.
Mr. Paice rose—
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in a moment.
It is proposed that the agency will be funded not only by moneys voted by Parliament, but by moneys provided by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, when or if it takes its powers, and granted by the National Assembly for Wales. That is only right and proper, as this is a devolved matter and there must be local accountability. In practice, the costs of the agency's main headquarters in London and its activities in England will be met by money provided by Parliament, and the cost of its executive bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and of activities carried out on the ground in those parts of the UK will, generally speaking, be funded by those devolved authorities.
There will be separate votes before the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and grant aid from the National Assembly for Wales. There will be a separate vote in this Parliament, because as a non-ministerial Department it will have its own vote. No one will be able to claim to have been short-changed by any present or future Secretary of State for health: everyone will know exactly what the vote is.
The agency must be able to account separately to those bodies. This is a new and unusual arrangement. We are in the early days of devolution, and this is the first time that a UK body has been set up to deal with a devolved matter. The traditional financial provisions that we are used to seeing in Bills do not deal with the interests of other legislatures when Parliament legislates on an area for which policy responsibility is devolved. We have had to be careful to ensure that all the elements of the picture fit together. It has taken a certain amount of head scratching. The Bill has been examined to see whether we need a Ways and Means motion and whether payments should go into the Consolidated Fund.
Parliamentary draftsmen and others, along with various bodies, have tried to produce legislation that is workable and practical, while also drawing clear lines of accountability in regard to the flow of money. That is why we wish to remove clause 39, and have tabled an amendment.
The amendment to the financial provisions includes the traditional provision to authorise payments by Parliament, but also expressly provides for sums to be paid by the National Assembly for Wales, from the Scottish Consolidated Fund, or by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was implicit in our original proposal; it is now explicit, and it could be said that it is because of the explicit nature of the reference to the Consolidated Fund that this motion is required.
Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation. It is a pity that the Government have sought to avoid giving such explanations.
132
If I understood him rightly, the Minister said that the headquarters would be paid for from the vote in this Parliament. The headquarters, however, will affect the whole agency, not just the bit in England. Am I right in concluding that the other authorities will not bear their share of the cost?
The Minister has explained that there will be separate votes by different authorities. Can he put some figures on that, and tell us how much is likely to be voted for the first year by the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly? The Minister referred to the decision to make the agency a UK body. Did the votes in those authorities take place in the absence of any knowledge of what the costs would be?
Mr. Rooker: We do not have the agency now. It will effectively be operated by two Departments—mainly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but with a substantial input from the Department of health.
When MAFF is in the lead on a GB-wide issue—at present, I say GB rather than UK—MAFF will pay. There will be no flow of money across the borders. In other cases, decisions will be taken separately in Scotland. It is a question of splitting up some of the areas of responsibility and policy initiative that are currently on a GB basis, so that they can be put together on a UK basis in a devolved area, and, when the appropriate time comes, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can see what is happening to the money.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked about the headquarters. The money for the UK headquarters, and for activities in England, will come from the vote in the House of Commons. That does not mean that—in the rather juvenile words of an Opposition Member—the English are paying for the Scots' work. Let us raise the debate to a more adult level. There must be practical considerations, because there is only one central headquarters. That is stated in the White Paper. The Philip James report, on which the whole edifice is constructed, suggested that the national headquarters should be here in central London so that the agency was not marginalised from the rest of Whitehall. Moreover, agency staff will be responsible for negotiations in Brussels, drafting legislation and other such matters.
The vote will be split up, but it will be done in the way that I have described. The work in England, in the national headquarters, will be paid for from the vote in this Parliament, while the work in other areas will be paid for from the votes of the bodies involved. It is important for there to be a degree of accountability.
The arrangement must deal with the receipts of the agency, which is why the motion is required. The agency is likely to have two types of receipt. It will have the statutory receipts from any charges made under existing legislation—no new charges—of which receipts from the Meat Hygiene Service will be the major component, because it will be a sub-agency of the Food Standards Agency. However, the agency may have other minor receipts from fees for its services—the copying of documents and, occasionally, consultancy fees for giving information to certain bodies, as arranged in one of the clauses. Those minor receipts could be other income that it receives as a result of exploiting intellectual property rights.

133
Under existing legislation, those receipts would normally be paid into the Consolidated Fund. There is no need for the Bill to say that explicitly, but, as some of the agency's expenditure is to be met by the devolved authorities in the way that I have explained, there has to be provision for receipts to be paid to them as appropriate.
In the case of the non-statutory receipts—intellectual property rights, fees for consultancy or copying of documents—the Bill will provide a mechanism for the Treasury, acting jointly with the devolved authorities, to determine whether sums should be paid into the Consolidated Fund, the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland or, indeed, to the National Assembly for Wales.
For the avoidance of doubt, before anyone says, "Where is the English Consolidated Fund?", I specifically listed the Consolidated Fund, which we all know and love so well—that is, this one—the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland and the National Assembly for Wales. The statement in the amendment that sums are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund means that the motion is necessary, even though, in practice, it does not alter what would happen under the Bill as presently drafted. The same arrangements will take place. It is simply because of the declaration and the reference to the Consolidated Fund that we need the motion.
Mr. Gill: What we have just heard amounts to a reason why the Ways and Means motion has been introduced, but it does not amount to an excuse for the Government having failed to anticipate that complications would arise from devolution, which they might have thought about.
The Minister has been keen that the Bill should reach the statute book. It has been his baby. I am amazed—I think that the whole House is—that he has not delayed a little longer to get it right, rather than come back in the middle of the Committee stage with such a motion for the reason that he has given, which, I repeat, is not an excuse for the Government having got themselves into such a mess. Before he responds to that question, may I remind him that he has not yet answered the questions from several of my colleagues about the actual costs of the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan haselhurst): Order. With so little time left, that was far too long an intervention.
Mr. Rooker: We made it clear in the White Paper published in January 1998, in the draft Bill and in notes on clauses in January 1999—it was explicitly pointed out in the draft Bill and notes on clauses, which were scrutinised by a Special Select Committee—that the arrangements for devolution were not clear and could not be clear until much later, because the timetable had changed.
When the White Paper was drafted and published in January 1998, there was an expectation that we would be able to introduce the Bill for draft consideration last summer. That did not prove possible. In the meantime, the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly came and went and the bodies have been legitimately set up, so the action is right. We knew that there would be changes.
134
If hon. Members think that it is the last time that a Bill will come to the House that needs tweaking in Committee—which is what I thought the Committee stage was all about—to get it right and to take account of the new arrangements for devolution, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. It was the first occasion. There are bound to be many others, but that is the whole point of the exercise: to get it right in Committee and on Report, so that we do not give all the barristers and slick lawyers, who occasionally parade as hon. Members, the chance to earn a shilling or two.
I emphasise again that the amendment does not change anything in practice. There is no question of it providing any new way of raising any new money. I have said that several times, so it cannot be misrepeated or misquoted either in Committee in the morning or in any of the Sunday journals that follow our proceedings so closely. The amendment will simply make technical changes that are necessary not only to uphold in legislation the traditions of the house, but—although some hon. Members may not like it—to adapt to the new requirements of operating in a devolved context, which is what we must do.
As for demands for information on costs, charges and new money, with all due respect I say that the debate on this motion is not the appropriate time to debate those issues. All the figures were given in the consultation paper on the levy proposal—which we have dropped. Although there is still a need for new money, it will come from the Government. We shall not rob the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the money—it does not have any money anyway. The decision was taken that central Government would provide the extra money.
All the moneys, other than that extra money, will be provided for in current central Government public expenditure. However, as I have tried to explain, in relation to MAFF and the Department of health that money is sometimes expressed as Great Britain money, which—in the context of devolution, as a national United Kingdom agency will be working in a devolved sphere—must be identified.
In the morning, I shall do my best to explain to Committee members the amendment that has given rise to the motion. I invite hon. Members who are not Committee members to come to tomorrow's sitting and sit in the Public so that they might be better educated on the matter.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 2.

Division No. 232]

[10.46 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Benn, Rt hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Alexander, Douglas

Bennett, Andrew F

Allen, Graham

Benton, Joe

Atkins, Charlotte

Bermingham, Gerald

Austin, John

Best, harold

Barnes, harry

Blackman, Liz

Barron, Kevin

Blizzard, Bob

Battle, John

Boateng, Paul

Bayley, hugh

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Begg, Miss Anne

Brand, Dr Peter

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

135

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Illsley, Eric

Browne, Desmond

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Burden, Richard

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Jamieson, David

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Jenkins, Brian

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

Caplin, Ivor

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Caton, Martin

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Cawsey, Ian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Chaytor, David

Chisholm, Malcolm

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clapham, Michael

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Kemp, Fraser

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Khabra, Piara S

Clelland, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Coaker, Vernon

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Kirkwood, Archy

Cotter, Brian

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Cousins, Jim

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Cox, Tom

Laxton, Bob

Crausby, David

Leslie, Christopher

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Levitt, Tom

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Dalyell, Tam

McCabe, Steve

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Dawson, Hilton

McDonagh, Siobhain

Dean, Mrs Janet

Macdonald, Calum

Dobbin, Jim

McDonnell, John

Donohoe, Brian H

McFall, John

Doran, Frank

McIsaac, Shona

Dowd, Jim

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Drew, David

Mackinlay, Andrew

Drown, Ms Julia

McNamara, Kevin

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McNulty, Tony

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McWalter, Tony

Efford, Clive

McWilliam, John

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Mallaber, Judy

Ennis, Jeff

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Etherington, Bill

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Flint, Caroline

Martlew, Eric

Flynn, Paul

Maxton, John

Foulkes, George

Meale, Alan

Fyfe, Maria

Merron, Gillian

Gardiner, Barry

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Gibson, Dr Ian

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Mudie, George

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mullin, Chris

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Grogan, John

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hain, Peter

Norris, Dan

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Olner, Bill

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Öpik, Lembit

Hanson, David

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Palmer, Dr Nick

Healey, John

Pearson, Ian

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Pendry, Tom

Hepburn, Stephen

Pickthall, Colin

Heppell, John

Pike, Peter L

Hesford, Stephen

Plaskitt, James

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pope, Greg

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Purchase, Ken

Humble, Mrs Joan

Quinn, Lawrie

Hutton, John

Rammell, Bill

Iddon, Dr Brian

Raynsford, Nick

136

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Rooker, Jeff

Temple-Morris, Peter

Roy, Frank

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Ruane, Chris

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Ruddock, Joan

Tipping, Paddy

Sanders, Adrian

Todd, Mark

Sarwar, Mohammad

Touhig, Don

Savidge, Malcolm

Trickett, Jon

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Singh, Marsha

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Skinner, Dennis

Tyler, Paul

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Walley, Ms Joan

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Wareing, Robert N

Watts, David

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wills, Michael

Spellar, John

Winnick, David

Squire, Ms Rachel

Wise, Audrey

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Wood, Mike

Stevenson, George

Worthington, Tony

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Stringer, Graham

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mr. Clive Betts and

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mr. Robert Ainsworth

NOES

Tellers for the Noes:

Swayne, Desmond

Mr. Douglas Hogg and

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mr. Christopher Gill

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Standards Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Northern Ireland Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Mike Hall]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 15th July,
(1) any Message received from the Lords relating to the Northern Ireland Bill may be considered, though opposed, at any hour; and
(2) the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both houses.—[Mr. Mike Hall]
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Friday 16th July, proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister may continue for up to five hours and may be proceeded with, though opposed, after half-past Two o'clock, and in calculating that period of five hours, the time taken by any interruption of the proceedings under paragraph 4 of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) shall be disregarded.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question proposed,
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  FOOD SAFETY
  That the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (hygiene) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1585) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  That the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1627) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the National Health Service (General Medical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1620) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

  Medicines Control Agency
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: It is my pleasure to present a petition organised by Consumers for Health Choice, the Health Food Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Health Stores and others. The petitioners are constituents of mine who attended Holland and Barrett health food shops.
  The petition declares:
  Government proposals would give the Medicines Control Agency virtually unlimited powers to classify safe products as medicines. This would mean that the Medicines Control Agency could remove at a stroke products that are vital to the good health of many consumers and are currently sold under food law. This is an abuse of the democratic process and a denial of freedom of choice.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of health to reconsider its proposals and to introduce an immediate moratorium preventing the Medicines Control Agency from declaring these safe products to be medicines except on the grounds of illegal claims or safety, and, further, to introduce new legislation appropriate to the special needs of safe, natural health products.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Student Unions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
10.59 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am grateful for the support of my honourable—my very honourable—Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). I am delighted to see that this important debate has attracted the attendance of some Government Back Benchers, too.
As I have already advised the Minister's office, I want to talk about three topics. The first is the way in which student union officers should be democratically elected and, if appropriate, removed from office. The second is the way in which independent assessors should be appointed to investigate grievances against student unions by their members and should conduct themselves with regard to the complainant, the union and the university. The third is the method by which failures by student unions to observe the law, or by the university to see to it that they do, can be challenged successfully by students themselves.
In that connection, I thank the Clerks of the Table Office, who have guided me through a difficult constitutional problem in bringing this debate before the House. I fully acknowledge—as they have pointed out—that the Minister does not have responsibility for the way in which individual universities have chosen to apply or failed to apply the legislation. I shall look to him tonight merely to comment on the lessons that are illustrated by the case that I propose to examine, rather than the merits of that case itself.
It would be helpful to the House if I briefly select from the Education Act 1994 the most relevant provisions dealing with democracy in student unions. Section 22(1) states:
"The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that any students' union for students at the establishment operates in a fair and democratic manner".
Section 22(2)(d) states:
"appointment to major union offices should be by election in a secret ballot in which all members are entitled to vote".
The section obviously refers to the concept of a cross-campus ballot, as opposed to the open meeting with votes taken on a show of hands.
Section 22(2)(e) states that
"the governing body should satisfy themselves that the elections are fairly and properly conducted".
Section 22(2)(m) states:
"there should be a complaints procedure available to all students or groups of students who … are dissatisfied in their dealings with the union … which should include provision for an independent person appointed by the governing body to investigate and report on complaints".
Section 22(2)(n) states:
"complaints should be dealt with promptly and fairly and where a complaint is upheld there should be an effective remedy."
That legislation, introduced after much nagging of the previous Government, is good legislation as far as it goes, but the case I am about to outline of the experiences of
140
Miss Margaret Whelan—who became for a brief period president of the student union at Oxford Brookes university, which is the former Oxford polytechnic—may bring to the Minister's attention doubts that I have about whether it is adequate.
When I have finished recounting Miss Whelan's experience to the House, I shall look to the Minister for answers to five points. First, do the Government support, and intend to retain, the legislation relating to democracy in student unions? Secondly, if so, do they agree that the existing legislation rules out the removal of a student union president who has been elected by a full cross-campus ballot by means of overturning the result on a show of hands at an open meeting? That is what happened in Miss Whelan's case. Thirdly, if the Government feel that the existing legislation does not rule that out, do they agree that that loophole should be closed by amending the Education Act 1994? Fourthly, do the Government agree that the findings of the so-called independent person—the external person to whom, in the final analysis, the student can appeal, as laid down in the Act—should be subject to rejection by the university if it does not like the findings, or is the Government's understanding that the Act means that the verdict of the independent person should be final?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what suggestions can the Government make for sanctions to be taken against a university that has failed to ensure that the student union has conducted itself in accordance with the provisions of the Act, or for sanctions that the aggrieved student can take against the union if it is in breach of the provisions of the Act? I am conscious that we are talking about young people with few resources, if any, who seldom are able to go to law but who have to take on large, entrenched interests. In contrast, the student unions have significant sums of public money at their disposal with which to fight their battles.
I believe that the provisions of the 1994 Act will remain a dead letter unless students are empowered to enforce them. That might be accomplished by means of a special legal aid provision, where a prima facie case of abuse can be shown to exist. Those are the points to which I look to the Minister to reply.
I turn now to the events at Oxford Brookes university, starting in 1994 when the Act was published. Things began rather well, in fact. The university's deputy vice-chancellor in charge of corporate services, Mr. Brian Summers, prepared a memorandum for the university's board of governors. The memorandum is entitled "Education Act 1994—Students' Unions". It was dated 22 November 1994, and given the reference BG94/101.
The memorandum showed that the board of governors was fully aware—right from the start—of the new obligations in respect of student unions placed upon it by the Act. In particular, paragraph 2 noted:
"The first part of the Act requires the Governing Body to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that the Students' Union operates in a fair and democratic manner."
With regard to the 1994 Act's requirement that the governing body should satisfy itself that the elections are "fairly and properly conducted", the memorandum made the following crucial admission:
"The rules for the elections, which are a schedule to the existing constitution, are comprehensive and fair. However, the results of an election can be overturned by a general meeting of the Students' Union (which might only involve 200 members) and from the point of view of the Board's duties and responsibilities"—

141
that means, under the new Act—
"this may not be satisfactory."
That is precisely what happened in the case of Margaret Whelan. As for the requirement for a prompt and fair complaints procedure leading to an effective remedy, paragraph 3 of the memorandum, in sub-paragraphs (m) and (n), recommended that complaints should first be made by reference to the president of the student union. The complainant, if dissatisfied, would then be referred to a panel of three staff members appointed by the university's vice-chancellor. Finally, the chairman of the board of governors would, if requested by the complainant, appoint an
"independent person … to conduct an inquiry. The person will not be a current student or member of staff with the University, a Governor or other office holder or agent of the University and will be appropriately skilled to deal with complex complaints."
The provisions made it clear that Oxford Brookes university was aware of the need to ensure that any independent person appointed to hold an inquiry into the way in which the university had dealt with a complaint must be untainted by any special motivation to assist the university to avoid the embarrassment of having its handling of that complaint criticised. In other words, the complainant should be able to have confidence that, if the independent person found that the complainant had been denied justice by the university's complaints procedure, that would be fully revealed in the independent person's adjudication.
I now turn to the constitution of the Oxford Brookes student union—OBSU. As has been seen, memorandum BG94/101 admitted that
"from the point of view of the Board's duties and responsibilities,"
it
"may not be satisfactory … that the results of an election can be overturned by a General Meeting of the Student's Union".
Nevertheless, that is precisely what the constitution of the student union continued to permit.
Section 8 of that constitution was divided into clauses dealing with motions of censure and with motions of no confidence. A motion of no confidence was defined as
"a detailed motion stating that any [Union Executive Council member or Committee] cannot be relied upon to perform his/her/its duties competently".
If passed, such a motion would "effect immediate dismissal".
As the deputy vice-chancellor's memorandum had recognised, that meant that the outcome of a democratic election, required by section 22 of the 1994 Act to be held
"in a secret ballot in which all members are entitled to vote",
could be immediately overturned by a simple majority at a general meeting with a quorum of only 200 students. That made a mockery of the provisions of the Act, which laid statutory duties on the board of governors to ensure that the university student union
"operates in a fair and democratic manner".
Five times as many students participated in the ballot that elected Miss Whelan as president of the OBSU as participated shortly afterwards in the meeting that ousted her. Indeed, the general manager of the OBSU and an employee of the union, Miss Catherine Lord, in a letter published in The Oxford Independent in March 1996 commented:
142
"The Student's Union Executive are aware of some anomalies in the Constitution, including parts of it which were outlawed by the 1994 Education Act which took effect in April 1995"—
let us remember that that letter was published in March 1996—
"It is not a quick task to re-write a constitution but a Constitution Working Party has been set up to address the issue with a deadline for a final draft to be produced by August 1996."
A memorandum had been produced in autumn 1994, which had been approved by the board of governors. All that was required was the approval and agreement of the student union and it would have been enacted at once in the internal legislation of the university. However, two years later, no move had been made to regularise the constitution, nor was any such move made the following year. In fact, even though the university could have put the constitution of the student union into line with the provisions of the new Act in 1994, it did not happen then and it did not happen in 1995, 1996 or in 1997. Eventually it happened in October 1998. Whether it was pure coincidence that it finally happened at a time when it was becoming apparent to the university that Miss Margaret Whelan was not going to let the matter drop, and that it might be aired in a more public place, is obviously a question of conjecture.
Despite some extremely unpleasant incidents of intimidation, on 4 March 1995, Margaret Whelan won the election in a cross-campus ballot in which more than 1,000 students participated. No sooner had she become president elect—she was not due to take up office until 31 July—than a move was made by a caucus of students to overturn the result of the election by calling an open meeting. Acting alone, she managed to obtain an injunction to stop that disgraceful procedure from taking place. She received practically no support from the university and the student union wasted nearly £800 of public money vainly trying to resist the granting of the injunction.
Margaret took up office as president on 31 July, when most students were away from the college. A new motion of no confidence was therefore tabled for 5 October, which was the earliest practical date at which students might be available on the college campus to come to a meeting and kick her out.
I shall give only one fleeting example of an unpleasant incident, although I have a raft of more horrible examples with which I shall not burden the House. On the morning of the 5 October meeting, Margaret Whelan discovered a message on her ansaphone informing her that the venue for the crucial lunchtime meeting had been changed, allegedly because of the sudden discovery that the advertised room for the open meeting had been double booked. Almost all her supporters thus found themselves in the wrong place because of a failure properly to direct them to the new location. Nevertheless, strangely enough, some 180 of her opponents—just over half the total number that had voted for the candidate whom she had defeated in the cross-campus ballot for the union presidency in March—had somehow managed to come to the new venue for the meeting.
There followed procedural moves to bring the motion of no confidence against Margaret Whelan to the top of the agenda. The proposer and seconder of the motion were allowed to speak for two minutes each; she was allowed a similar period amid constant heckling and the interjection of two purported points of information that

143
were actually further speeches against her. That 4:1 imbalance was then reinforced by a procedural motion to move straight to a vote, which was of course carried by a large majority.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Disgraceful.
Dr. Lewis: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having noticed his presence and support until his timely intervention. As he rightly said, the proceedings were indeed disgraceful. By those means, Miss Whelan was ousted from the presidency of the Oxford Brookes student union.
In the few moments remaining to me, I shall state what happened when I became involved in the matter. After Margaret Whelan had been through the complaints procedure, a report eventually came from the independent person who had been appointed to consider the case. That gentleman was Mr. Guy Whalley, who is a retired lawyer, a former senior partner in the London law firm of Freshfields, chair of the governing body of the Royal Academy of Music and chair of the medical services committee of a local health authority. When Mr. Whalley provided his report, it was covered by a letter marked "in strictest confidence". The letter said:
"The Report is submitted on the basis that it is strictly confidential to the members of the Board and will not be shown to any other party (including the Complainant). My reason for requesting confidentiality in this way is that the Report does contain sensitive material which, if vouchsafed to a wider audience, could create difficulty, particularly if you and your colleagues decided not to accept any of the Report's recommendations. At some point, however, a summary of the conclusions accepted by the Board will have to be given to the Union and the Complainant."
I have spoken to Mr. Whalley about that, and in his defence he points out that his terms of reference did not mention the 1994 Act. He was asked to report to the university, and only the university, and rightly or wrongly he decided that that was where his obligation lay. It must be said that in none of the internal inquiries into the complaints or the terms of reference as stated to the external independent person was any reference made to the existence of the 1994 Act and its provisions for a complaints procedure.
Finally, I sent a series of 25 questions to Mr. Summers at Oxford Brookes university, having had a long telephone conversation with him, to give him an opportunity to respond, just as Mr. Whalley was given an opportunity to respond. I hope that I have done justice to Mr. Whalley's response in the very brief time available to me. The university's response was, to put it mildly, disappointing. For example, it said:
"Your point is that the Board reviewed the Students' Union Constitution in 1994 and identified some elements which might benefit from review, however, it was some time before any changes took place."
Well, one could call four years' continuation of an illegal constitution—four years following the union's identification of what needed to be done to its constitution to make it legal—some time. The letter continued:
"While it is difficult to accurately account"—
that is a nice split infinitive—
"for delays so many years on, these were in part occasioned by a genuine desire on the part of the Union to be thorough in redrafting and the need to secure the support of a quorate general meeting for
144
any changes … The Board had noted that the power of the general meeting to overturn the decisions of a Returning Officer in an election might not be satisfactory, but it had not considered that the removal of an officer by a general meeting required amendment."
The truth of the matter was, as Mr. Summers had revealed to me in his telephone conversation, that the board had actually approved the recommendations of his own memorandum—BG94/101—but the union had refused to go along with it and left the whole process in suspension for four years.
In this little David-and-Goliath battle, we have had arrayed on one side a caucus of student hacks, a distinguished board of university governors and an eminent independent person. Ranged against all of them was a 20-year-old recently orphaned undergraduate whose sole offence was fairly and squarely to win an election in a campus-wide democratic ballot. All of those whom I have mentioned succeeded between them in depriving her of her presidency; but, in my opinion, she succeeded in putting all of them to shame.
Mr. Winterton: They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Dr. Lewis: Indeed they ought.
I end on a more positive note: although those gentlemen remain in their eminent positions, I will be happy to be witnessing next Friday the wedding of Miss Margaret Whelan to her fiancé. I am sure that the whole house, in recognition of Miss Whelan's courage, if for no other reason, wishes her and Mr. Mark harper every future happiness.
11.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): I join the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) in wishing the young lady a very long and happy wedding.
Dr. Lewis: Marriage.
Mr. Mudie: Wedding is the same as marriage.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a brief opportunity to reply to a debate on the importance of student unions, their conduct and accountability, and the mechanism for independent consideration and complaints against them. I am also pleased to place on record the courtesy with which he approached my office to inform me of the basis of the debate.
I expect the hon. Gentleman to accept that there is no way that I would intervene in a specific case. Although he feels very strongly about an individual case, which may be appropriate, it has been dealt with through agreed procedures under an Act that was passed by the previous Government. What matters is not the individual case but the questions of principle that it raises. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, given the time, I shall attempt to answer the five general questions that he raised concerning the young lady. I have a long spiel, but very little time to give it, so I shall go straight to the reforms introduced by the Education Act 1994, which govern the election of officers to student unions.
Student reforms passed under the 1994 Act had the support of the House. Their stated aims were to secure choice, fairness and accountability in student unions.

145
As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the key reforms of the 1994 Act was to give students the right to opt out of student union membership if they so wished. As he will know, very few students take up that option. Student unions are also required to hold referendums to decide whether to continue to be affiliated to the National Union of Students. Again, the Act does not seem to be persuading student unions not to become affiliated to the NUS. Time after time, students vote overwhelmingly to remain affiliated.
The 1994 Act introduced other reforms that specifically govern some of the matters touched on by the hon. Gentleman—elections to the offices of student unions, their conduct and the procedure for dealing with complaints against them. First, each student union must have a written constitution, which must be agreed by the university's governing body, and it must act in accordance with it. All elections to a major student union office must be carried out by secret ballot, in which all union members are allowed to vote. Each institution where there is a student union covered by the 1994 Act must have a framework, governed by a code of practice, for considering promptly and fairly any complaint about the conduct of the student union. That includes the right to have a complaint investigated by an "independent person".
It is now nearly five years since the 1994 Act came into force, and we are not aware of any significant problems in its operation. The provisions that became the 1994 Act were, of course, fully debated in both Houses. During the Bill's passage, several amendments were made by the then Government. For example, a proposal in the Bill that governing bodies must have regard to written guidance from the Secretary of State for Education when preparing their codes of practice—something that the hon. Gentleman might find attractive now—was specifically dropped by the then Government. That would have allowed the Secretary of State to intervene or give guidance on the preparation of codes of practice for the conduct of student unions.
The proposal that complaints about the actions of a student union should be considered by an independent person—rather than the institution's own governing
146
body—was introduced by a Government amendment. The Government spokesman in the other place added the provision of an "independent person" to the Bill during the House of Lords Committee debate, to give students the confidence that they would be dealt with fairly. It is clear that the provisions of the 1994 Act were carefully considered by both Houses during debate and tightened up, to avoid any potential loopholes, by amendments by the then Government.
The current framework is designed to ensure fairness, transparency and an independent mechanism by which a student can seek redress. First, all elections to major student union offices must be carried out by secret ballot. The student union must have and follow a written constitution, and follow the institution's governing body's code of practice on its conduct. That must be regularly revised. After a suitable period had passed, the 1994 Act was revised. As a result of that revision, students must be informed about the requirements of the code of practice at least once a year.
Individual students or groups of students who opt out of the union—as is their right—are protected from discrimination by the unions.
An aggrieved student has the right to complain to an independent person, who reports to the governing body on the complaint. The 1994 Act requires the governing body to deal with complaints promptly and fairly, and to provide an effective remedy where a complaint is upheld.
In the one remaining minute, I shall try to answer the five questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. Do the Government support the retention of the legislation? Yes; we do. Is it true that existing legislation rules out the removal, by an open meeting, of officers elected by secret ballot? No; it is for the university code of practice and union procedures to decide. That was allowed for in the Conservative Government's 1994 Act. Is that a loophole? No; it gives student unions freedom, which they are clearly using with good sense. Should the findings of—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  War Crimes Prosecution
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the consideration by the CPS of the case for the prosecution of an individual whose name has been sent to him under the War Crimes Act 1991. [90450]

  The Attorney-General
  I am aware that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is currently considering an allegation against an individual under the War Crimes Act 1991. The CPS is at an advanced stage in its consideration of the case.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within,(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90147]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members, in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scale specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Stroke Units
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the age criteria for admission to specialised stroke units in each Southern Health and Social Services Board general hospital which has such a unit. [89949]

  Mr. McFall
  Adult patients from all age groups are admitted to Craigavon Area Hospital's stroke unit, which is located in Lurgan Hospital.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which general hospitals sited within the boundaries of the Southern Health and Social Services Board(a) have specialised stroke units and (b) do not have specialised stroke units; which of the latter have plans to establish such units; and what are the target dates. [89947]

  Mr. McFall
  Craigavon Area Hospital has a specialised stroke unit which is located at Lurgan Hospital.
  2
  South Tyrone and Daisy Hill Hospitals do not have specialised stroke units. Following a review of hospital services for the elderly which is due to be completed in September 1999, it is anticipated that discussions will take place with South Tyrone and Daisy Hill about the establishment of additional specialised stroke services.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to which units stroke clients(a) under 65 years of age and (b) 65 years of age and over, living within the boundaries of the Southern Health and Social Services Board, are sent if there is no stroke unit available at a Southern Health and Social Services Board general hospital. [89950]

  Mr. McFall
  Within the Southern Health and Social Services Board area, patients with a diagnosis of stroke are admitted to the specialty of general medicine at Craigavon Area Hospital, South Tyrone Hospital or Daisy Hill Hospital for full assessment, appropriate investigation and stabilisation of their condition. Rehabilitation is arranged when clinically indicated. This is usually undertaken by a geriatrician where a patient is over 65.

  There is a dedicated stroke unit at Lurgan Hospital, which is part of the Craigavon Area Hospital Trust. Patients are transferred to the Unit, as appropriate, for a further period of rehabilitation. The stroke unit accepts adult patients from all age groups.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the existing and planned specialised stroke units in Southern Health and Social Services Board general hospitals which are established to treat stroke clients in(a) the acute phase, (b) the rehabilitation phase and (c) both phases. [89948]

  Mr. McFall
  There is one specialised stroke unit in the Southern Area at present. This is located in Lurgan hospital, which is part of the Craigavon Area Hospital Trust.

  The Southern Board is currently undertaking a review of hospital services for the elderly which is due to be completed in September. It is anticipated that this review will recommend that all acute hospitals in the Southern Board area should have dedicated stroke services to treat both the acute and rehabilitation phases.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by her within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90159]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members, in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) republican, (b) loyalist and (c) other prisoners have been released during each month under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement; how many are projected to be released up to September 2000; and how many eligible prisoners will remain in detention after that date. [89914]

  Mr. Ingram
  Table A lists the number of republican, loyalist and other prisoners who have been released during each month under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

  Table A

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Others

  Total

  September 1998

  28

  33

  1

  62

  October 1998

  71

  54

  4

  129

  November 1998

  12

  8

  2

  22

  December 1998

  7

  8

  1

  16

  January 1999

  2

  6

  0

  8

  February 1999

  3

  2

  0

  5

  March 1999

  7

  4

  0

  11

  April 1999

  2

  7

  0

  9

  May 1999

  2

  3

  1

  6

  June 1999

  9

  0

  0

  9

  July 1999

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  277

  Table B shows that a total of 60 prisoners have been deemed to meet the requirements of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 by the Sentence Review Commission and have been given Substantive Determinations with release dates up to end September 2000:

  Table B

  Number

  Republican

  29

  Loyalist

  30

  Others

  1

  Total

  60

  The 1998 Act also provides that, if circumstances

  Specified

  UDA

  UVF

  LVF

  UFF

  RHC

  PIRA

  INLA

  HMP Maze

  33

  31

  15

  6

  —

  70

  17

  HMP Maghaberry

  30

  25

  6

  6

  4

  14

  16

  HMP Magilligan

  14

  7

  —

  1

  —

  6

  4

  YOC Hydebank

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Total

  78

  66

  21

  14

  4

  92

  38

  Non-specified

  CIRA

  HMP Maze

  —

  HMP Maghaberry

  4

  HMP Magilligan

  —

  YOC Hydebank

  1

  Total

  5

  4
  permit, prisoners with release dates falling after the second anniversary of the enactment of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, who have served two years or more of their sentence, will be released on that anniversary. Table B does not include those prisoners with release dates beyond 30 September 2000.

  As stated, the Act provides that a prisoner who has been granted a declaration shall not be permitted release before he has served two years of the sentence to which the declaration relates. A total of 4 prisoners who have been granted Substantive Determinations fall into this category. They will be required to remain in prison to serve two years of the sentence to which the declaration relates and in each case this will extend beyond September 2000.

  The information provided for this written question is current at 1 July 1999.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what disciplinary sanctions have been imposed on prison officers following complaints of ill-treatment in each of the last five years. [89915]

  Mr. Ingram
  There has been no cases of disciplinary sanctions being taken against prison officers in Northern Ireland following complaints made by prisoners over the last five years.

  Prisoners (Proscribed Organisations)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current prison population of members or associates of each specified and non-specified proscribed organisation. [89916]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information is held for management purposes in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners where applicable. It should be noted, however, that with the exception of HMP Maze where such links are more clearly defined, this information is based on a combination of factors including the offence, sympathies and associates. These figures do not include prisoners who are regarded as only having either Loyalist or Republican sympathies.

  The most recent statistics for week commencing 5 July 1999 are as follows:

  Chief Constable (Meetings)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list and state the duration of visits made and meetings attended by the RUC Chief Constable involving(a) community or other groups perceived to be of Nationalist or Catholic affiliation, (b) community or other groups perceived to be of Unionist or Protestant affiliation and (c) cross-community groups in the last year. [89917]
  5
  Mr. Ingram
  Records of visits and meetings are not maintained in a way that would allow provision of the analysis requested. However, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has always made himself available to respond to invitations to visit and attend meetings with groups of all perceived affiliations in the Province. He is not influenced by whether this perceived affiliation might be Nationalist, Catholic, Unionist, Protestant, Cross-community or other.

PRIME MINISTER

  EC Development Assistance Programmes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is Government policy to restrict spending increases allotted to EC development assistance programmes; and if he will make a statement. [89735]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government seek to spend the United Kingdom's international development budget on those programmes which are most effective in contributing to the achievement of the international poverty eradication targets.

  During negotiations for the period 1993–99, the previous administration agreed to increase the amount of money allocated to the EC's development programmes by 180 per cent. This increase means that the UK now channels 30 per cent. of its international development budget through the EC. Owing to concerns about the effectiveness and impact of the EC's development assistance programmes, the UK successfully sought to hold down the level of growth to 1 per cent. for international development expenditure in the negotiations for 2000–06.

  At the end of last year, the Department for International Development published a strategy paper setting out detailed proposals for strengthening its collaboration with the EC to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of its programmes. Copies were placed in the Library.

  Business Men (Courtesy Calls)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Prime Minister how many business men have paid individual courtesy calls on him at No. 10 Downing Street since he took office; how many were citizens of the United States; and how many had no business activities within the United Kingdom. [90364]

  The Prime Minister
  I frequently meet many people in the course of my duties and this properly includes business men from here and abroad. It is the job of the British Prime Minister to promote this country as a place to invest, boosting British jobs and prosperity. I have done this on many occasions and will continue to do so.

  European Community Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Government department responsible for supplying the UK delegate to each European Community working group. [90436]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK's Permanent Representation is staffed by FCO officials and officials seconded to the FCO from various Whitehall Departments. UKREP staff report to the UK Permanent Representative and represent the Government as a whole. Seconded staff 6
  generally work in the Section which deals with the issues handled by their home department and attend the relevant working groups.

  IRA Arms
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the amount of arms possessed by the IRA. [90302]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: It is not possible to be specific in this matter. I can, however, say that substantial amounts of firearms, munitions and explosives are illegally held by various groups in Northern Ireland.

  Foreign Media (Articles)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those articles he has written in his official capacity for foreign newspapers and journals since 3 February. [90847]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 26 April 1999,Official Report, columns 11–12

  KLA Meeting
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the content of his discussions with KLA officials on 18 May; and if he will indicate who arranged the meeting. [90845]

  The Prime Minister
  The KLA briefed me on the situation on Kosovo and requested assistance for internally displaced people in Kosovo. I took the opportunity to call for unity among Kosovo Albanian groups. The meeting was arranged by the British Embassy in Tirana.

  Ministerial Changes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister on what recent occasions he has stated that he had not started to consider the next round of ministerial changes; and if he will place transcripts of the relevant statements in the Library. [90750]

  The Prime Minister
  I was asked about this in an interview with the BBC R4 Today programme about Northern Ireland. I am placing a transcript of the relevant part in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when his official spokesman briefed lobby journalists about his colleagues' prospects in the next round of ministerial changes; and when he was authorised to do so. [90749]

  The Prime Minister
  He has not done so.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90166]

  The Prime Minister
  Information is not recorded in the form requested. The majority of such correspondence is acknowledged as quickly as possible by my Office, and Ministers in the relevant Government Department are
  7
  asked to reply. However, my Office has undertaken a check of the letters to which I reply personally, and over the past two months I have replied to almost 60 per cent. of hon. Members within 20 days. I always endeavour to reply as quickly as possible to all my correspondence.

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many copies of the Government's 1997–98 Annual report were published; and at what cost to public funds; [90959]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a summary of the response and comments received on the Government's 1997–98 Annual report; [90960]

  (3) how many responses he received to the invitation contained in the Government's 1997–98 Annual report for people to notify him of their priorities for the year ahead; [90961]

  (4) what date he intends to publish the Government's Annual report 1998–99. [90969]

  The Prime Minister
  This year's Annual Report will be published towards the end of this month. A summary of the responses and comments received on last year's Report will be placed in the Library to coincide with this publication, together with the total number of such responses.

  Last year, 20,000 copies of the report were produced. This number was determined by The Stationery Office in accordance with the normal procedures they undertake for establishing the required print run for Government documents. As was made public on the day of publication, the direct cost to public funds of preparing the Report for publication was £96,000.

  No. 10 Downing Street (Charles Darwin Portrait)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that a portrait of Charles Darwin is displayed at No. 10 Downing Street. [90802]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government Art Collection (GAC) advise on the pictures to be hung in 10 Downing Street. The pictures are changed periodically as those loaned to the house are returned to the collection from which they have been drawn. I agree that Charles Darwin is a significant figure in British history and I will ask the Curator of the GAC to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion at an appropriate point.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what meetings he or his junior Ministers have had with(a) Friends of the Earth and (b) the National Farmers Union to discuss genetically modified crops; [88784]

  (2) what plans (a) he and (b) his Ministerial colleagues have to meet representatives of Friends of the Earth; and when the next such meeting is due to take place. [89951]
  8
  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Ministers in this Department are in regular contact with representatives of those with an interest in biotechnology-including environmental groups, consumer groups and biotechnology companies. It is not the normal practice of Governments to give details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recent report entitled, Organic Farming and Gene Transfer from Genetically Modified Crops; and if he will make a statement [89151]

  Mr. Meale
  The report looked at organic farming and the issue of 'contamination' of organic crops and products by genetically modified (GM) crops. The issues raised by the report are ones not of safety but of consumer choice. No GM crops would be released into the environment if there were any reasons to believe that it would be harmful to human health or the environment. The recently published SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops) guidelines set out proposed separation distances between genetically modified and organic crops and SCIMAC has indicted that it is willing to review these in the light of experience.

  Pesticide Use
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what evaluation he has undertaken of the relative effectiveness of economic instruments and other measures designed to minimise pesticide use; [88844]

  (2) if he will set out, for each pesticide or group of pesticides, the scientific basis which would underlie the introduction of additional financial or other measures designed to minimise their use; [88845]

  (3) what compensation regime would apply to farmers and agricultural producers to reflect the adverse impact of a pesticide tax. [88846]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have been considering the case for introducing a pesticide tax as part of its policy for minimising pesticide use. A research report, commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the design and impact of a possible tax, was published on 24 March and views were invited on a number of issues raised in this report. The Government are currently considering the responses to the consultative exercise.

  Parking Spaces (Double Yellow-lined Highway)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to councils on their obligations under section 143 of the Highway Code relating to designated parking spaces near a junction on double yellow-lined highway; and if he will make a statement. [88174]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to designated parking places near junctions. The Highway Code makes it clear in Rule 217 that motorists should not park within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space. It is entirely a matter for the local authority

  9
  concerned to decide in the circumstances of each case whether it is safe to designate a parking space within 10 metres of a junction.

  Coal-fired Power Stations (Emissions)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the level of(a) carbon dioxide, (b) sulphur dioxide, (c) nitrogen oxide and (d) fine particulate

  1997 emission estimates

  Carbon dioxide as carbon

  Nitrogen oxides

  Sulphur dioxide

  Fine paniculate matter (PM10)

  Power station coal combustion (in kilotonnes)

  26, 667

  300

  956

  22

  Percentage of total power station emissions

  67

  81

  93

  98

  Percentage of total UK

  18

  16

  58

  12

  Proposals for reducing emissions from English and Welsh power stations of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter were contained in a consultative paper published by the Environment Agency in March 1999. The information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland. The European Commission has recently adopted a Proposal for a National Emission Ceilings Directive, which potentially implies further reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions beyond those already envisaged. The Government are considering their response to the Proposal.

  Following the consultation on climate change, which ran from October 1998 to February 1999, we are now developing a draft UK climate change programme which we are aiming to publish later this year for further consultation. The draft programme will cover all sectors of the economy, including power generators.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many meetings of the JCC he has attended. [89280]

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

  GM Food
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the environmental implications of genetically modified food. [87938]

  Mr. Meacher [holding answer 1 July 19991
  The purpose of the current EU and UK legislation is to prevent or minimise any damage to the environment which may arise from the escape or release of genetically modified organisms.

  Each application for the release of genetically modified (GM) plants is supported by a risk assessment, which is evaluated by Government experts and independent scientists on the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). If there were any reason to believe
  10
  emissions from coal-fired power stations for the latest year for which statistics are available; what percentage of the total of such emissions from United Kingdom power stations this represents; and what steps he will be taking to reduce those emissions. [89128]

  Mr. Meale
  The emissions from United Kingdom coal-fired power stations, set in the context of total power station emissions and total emissions are given in the table. The figures are taken from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory.

  that a release would be harmful to human health or the environment then it would not be allowed. The environmental assessments are available on the public register together with reports of monitoring carried out during and after the trial.

  All GM crops intended for general cultivation must be covered by a valid Part C (marketing) consent issued under Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Under the Directive a consent will be issued only where the environmental risk assessment demonstrates that the marketing will not cause significant harm to human health or the environment.

  The farmscale evaluations will allow the Government to study the effects on the environment of the larger scale growing of GM crops year by year. If trends are spotted about possible adverse effects, we will have a sound basis for following these observations up and taking precautionary action. The work will be reviewed each year and we will use this to decide how best to proceed with the managed development of GM crops in the UK. This approach ensures that large-scale plantings do not proceed until we have sufficient evidence that the particular GM crop does not harm the environment.

  DETR carries out research on the environmental impact of GM crops. Two important recent reports are "Environmental Risks of Herbicide Tolerant Oilseed Rape" and "The Commercial use of Genetically Modified Crops in the United Kingdom: the Potential Wider Impact on Farmland Wildlife". Copies of both reports are in the Library.

  Supermarket Land Sale (Leyton)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the land at Leyton Yard was sold by his Department to Asda with extant planning permission for a supermarket and related developments; and if he will make a statement. [89562]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The land was sold with outline planning permission for mixed food and non food retail development and leisure facilities subject to a number of conditions contained in a Section 106 Planning
  11
  Agreement and other arrangements with the London Borough of Waltham Forest to provide community benefits and highway improvements.

  Void Council Properties
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of council-owned properties was declared as void by the housing departments in(a) the London Borough of Wandsworth, (b) the City of Westminster and (c) the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham for 1998; and if he will make a statement. [89469]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As reported by them on their respective Housing Investment Programme (HIP) Operational Information returns, 2.0 per cent. of council-owned properties were vacant in the London Borough of Wandsworth on 1 April 1998, 1.7 per cent. in the City of Westminster and 2.3 per cent. in Hammersmith and Fulham. There is likely to be some variation in the proportion of dwellings that are vacant in a local authority from one date to another during the year.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many affordable homes to rent were developed in(a) the London Borough of Wandsworth, (b) the City of Westminster and (c) the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in 1998; and if he will make a statement. [89468]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There were 266 additional rented social lettings provided in Hammersmith and Fulham in 1998–99 by registered social landlords, with support from the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) and Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG), 83 in Wandsworth and 196 in Westminster.

  These additional social lettings come from new build, the purchase and rehabilitation of existing property and from empty properties brought into use for temporary social housing. The Approved Development Programme and LASHG also supports the provision of homes for shared ownership and incentive schemes which assist social tenants to move into home ownership and vacate their letting for others in housing need.

  According to information provided to the Department by local authorities, there was no local authority new build in these boroughs during 1998–99 (other than any provided through LASHG).

  Birds
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many special protection areas designated under the European Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds are subject to wildfowling; and what proportion of the total area so designated this constitutes. [89392]

  Mr. Meale
  I regret the information sought is not available. JNCC and the country agencies do not routinely gather statistical information on wildfowling activities at a national level. Wildfowling activities allowed under the 12
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 take place on many coastal and other SPAs. These activities may be subject to certain management restrictions within those SPAs.

  Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the performance of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in meeting its targets over the past 12 months for the issue of driving licences. [90062]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State's key targets for DVLA in 1998–99 were announced on 29 April 1999,Official Report, columns 223–25, and published in DVLA's 1998–99 Business Plan. There were four targets relating to the issue of driving licences, all of which DVLA achieved.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many refrigeration units are operating in his Department's buildings. [89936]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department has 102 air conditioning units in buildings across its estate.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the refrigerators inside his Department use HFCs as their refrigerant. [89935]

  Mr. Meale
  Decisions on the purchase of refrigerators are for the Department's local property centres and details are not recorded centrally. My Department's practice is not to purchase refrigerators which use hydrofluorocarbons where suitable substitutes exist. For example, the specification for refrigerators in our new London headquarters buildings resulted in the use of the alternative refrigerant R600a.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when construction work is scheduled to commence on the Lamberhurst Bypass in Kent; [90078]

  (2) when detailed plans for the landscaping and design of the Lamberhurst Bypass will be published; [90079]

  (3) [n which dates the last traffic surveys were carried out at the western end of the Pembury bypass on the A21 in Kent; and when the Government plan to carry out the next traffic survey at the western end of the Pembury bypass on the A21 in Kent. [90080]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Gentleman.
  13
  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Archie Norman, dated 12 July 1999:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, has asked the Chief Executive, Lawrie Haynes, to answer your recent Parliamentary Questions about the A21 Lamberhurst Bypass and traffic surveys at the western end of the A21 Pembury Bypass. I am replying in Lawrie's absence from the office.
  In December last year Lord Whitty announced that the design and build contract for Lamberhurst Bypass would be let in the financial year 2001/02. That is the earliest practicable date having regard to the available funding and allowing for the outstanding processes. Those processes include finalising the arrangements for consultancy advice to the Highways Agency on the scheme and acquiring the land needed.
  Landscaping proposals for the Lamberhurst Bypass were included in the Environmental Statement published in 1992 and then examined at the public inquiry later that year. I am sending you separately appropriate material from that time. Detailed final design will be undertaken by the company who are awarded the contract to build the bypass, though they will be required to do this within the constraints of the Environmental Statement. Their detailed landscaping and design plans would be available for inspection at public exhibitions just before the start of works on site, and plans would be finalised in consultation with the affected landowners and other appropriate bodies. I will send you copies of these plans when available.
  Turning to your request for traffic information at the western end of the Pembury Bypass, traffic data were collected only up to and including 1992 during the development of the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury dualling scheme. However, traffic surveys are to be included in a study of the operational performance of the roundabout at the western end of the Pembury Bypass which we hope to be carried out towards the end of this financial year. Following the results of the main roads review announced in 1998, this scheme is now to be considered by the Regional Planning Conference as part of the Access to Hastings multi-modal study.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what work is being done to identify and promote best practice in community consultation by statutory bodies when making bids for Single Regeneration Budget funds. [90305]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government believe it is crucial to ensure the active participation of local communities in the regeneration of their areas. The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Round 5 Bidding Guidance issued in September 1998 indicated the need for local communities to be involved in both the preparation and implementation of bids. SRB final bids have now been received and indications are that bidders have indeed involved local communities.

  My Department runs a programme of information exchange and dissemination to support regeneration partnerships in the management and delivery of their schemes. In particular, my Department has published a guide for practitioners "Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration" which provides advice to those responsible for regeneration activity at the local level on how to set about involving the community. We also work with other organisations to encourage the identification and promotion of good practice, and will be learning from any relevant lessons the New Deal for Communities programme throws up.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans there are to twin or place senior civil servants with areas that qualify for Single Regeneration Budget funds. [90314]
  14
  Mr. Meale
  The Government's Policy Action Team on Learning Lessons is considering the scope for more secondments of civil servants to work in local authority or voluntary sector projects in poor neighbourhoods, which could include projects involving SRB funds. The team is reporting this month and we will give serious consideration to any recommendations they may make.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to give local authorities additional powers to require private landlords to improve and renovate housing. [90274]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We intend to reform the housing fitness standard by introducing a risk-based rating system which will enable local authorities to target enforcement action against unfit privately rented housing more effectively. We also intend to introduce a national mandatory licensing system for houses in multiple occupation.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to give greater protection to sites of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement. [90176]

  Mr. Meale
  Our proposals for giving greater protection to sites of special scientific interest were set out in the Government consultation paper "Sites of Special Scientific Interest—Better Protection and Management" issued in September 1998. We have recognised the need to give thorough consideration to the most effective measures we can introduce, and will be announcing our conclusions shortly.

  Special Conservation Areas
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of special areas of conservation; and if he will make a statement. [90178]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government have recently announced that a completed list of 340 wildlife sites nominated for special protection (cSACs) under the Habitats Directive has been submitted to the European Commission. The next stage is for the national lists to be discussed at a meeting of member states in the Atlantic biogeographic region in September. It is too early to make a full scientific assessment of how far the identification of these sites has contributed to the conservation of the habitat types and species concerned but they are given the highest priority for conservation action by English Nature. I am confident that this is a further step forward, reaffirming our determination to protect our own natural heritage and our commitment to European and international conservation initiatives.

  Planning Inspectors
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Planning Inspectorate' s Guidance Notes for
  15
  Candidates, in respect of the recruitment of planning inspectors (1999–2000) precludes candidates from membership of the Freemasons. [90246]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Because membership of a secret society such as the Freemasons may be incompatible with the requirement that Planning Inspectors should be fair, open and impartial.

  Bus Lane, New London Road
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessments he has made of the impact which his Department's funding of a bus lane on the New London Road, Chelmsford will have on(a) motorists, (b) traffic on roads running off the New London Road and (c) the number of people using buses. [90145]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: My Department has funded a local transport package for Chelmsford which encourages improved public transport, in line with our policies for integrated transport. It is for Essex County Council as the local transport authority, to decide on the detailed implementation of that package and to monitor the results. As we made clear in "From Workhorse to Thoroughbred: A better role for bus travel", published in March, a well-conceived scheme for bus priority can produce a rapid pay-back in time savings and improved service reliability.

  Portsmouth Millennium Tower
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the objectors to the Portsmouth Millennium Tower Transport and Works Act 1992 application; what discussions he has had with them; and on what grounds. [90418]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The outstanding objections to the Portsmouth Millennium Tower Transport and Works Act application are from Railtrack, the Portsmouth Society, the Gosport Society and three private individuals. Their objections concern the appropriateness of locating the proposed Tower in Portsmouth Harbour, the environmental and economic impacts of the scheme, and the need to protect the pier supporting Portsmouth Harbour railway station. No discussions have been held with the objectors.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons he has postponed making a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry into the Transport and Works Act application for Portsmouth Millennium Tower. [90966]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State has deferred his decision on whether to hold a public inquiry into this application at the request of the applicants, Berkeley Festival Waterfront Company Ltd., who intend to submit some amendments to their scheme. An informed decision on the appropriate procedural route can best be taken after the details of the amendments are known and interested parties have had the opportunity to consider and comment on them. This would also help to avoid the risk of potentially abortive work being undertaken on the basis of the present proposals.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a decision on the Transport and Works Act application for 16
  the Portsmouth Millennium Tower before the planning application for the tower has been considered by the local planning authority; and if he will make a statement. [90965]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Where a Transport and Works Act (TWA) Order is applied for, the promoters may either ask the Secretary of State to grant deemed planning permission at the same time as making an Order, or they may (as in this case) apply separately to the local planning authority for planning permission. In the latter situation, the Secretary of State would not make a TWA Order unless the works the subject of that Order had received planning permission.

  New Deal for Communities
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if local authority district areas designated for New Deal for Communities in the first round will be considered for subsequent schemes. [90390]

  Mr. Meale
  We are currently considering the targeting of future rounds of the New Deal for Communities. We intend to announce the outcome after the summer recess.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proposals were promoted by the Government at the EU Environment Council on 24 and 25 June in respect of the Biosafety Protocol; [90519]

  (2) what steps the Government took at the EU Environment Council on 24 and 25 June to oppose attempts to exclude or exempt any genetically-engineered organisms from labelling requirements under the Biosafety Protocol; [90520]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the resumption of the Biosafety Protocol negotiations, and on the position the Government advocated at the EU Environment Council on 24 and 25 June in respect of any such resumption. [90518]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Council Meeting held on 24 and 25 June concluded that the Commission and the member states should make every effort to promote a successful completion to negotiations of the Biosafety Protocol with the aim of concluding negotiations by about the end of the year. The meeting agreed that, based on consultations held so far, there was no need to amend the elements which formed the compromise package tabled by the EU at the end of the Cartagena meeting, including proposals for documentation. The UK fully supported these conclusions.

  Waterside Park Business Park
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if a notice of date, time and place of the public inquiry into Waterside Park business park was published in local newspapers; [90546]

  (2) if all those people who (a) objected to the proposal for the Waterside Park business park directly and (b) had their objections forwarded to him by the hon. Member

  17
  for Denton and Reddish and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), were notified of the inquiry and the pre-inquiry hearing. [90547]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Details of the public inquiry were not published in the local press. However, in the interest of natural justice the inquiry has been adjourned to allow all interested parties additional time to prepare and make their views known on this proposal. I will write to my hon. Friend when I have more details.

  Seahorse-Exodus Incident
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the Marine Accident Investigation Branch report into the Seahorse-Exodus incident of March 1997 has not been published; and if he will make a statement. [90703]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This accident, which took place in Irish territorial waters, was investigated by both the Irish and UK governments working in full co-operation. The Irish authorities have completed their investigation and are preparing their report for publication. The UK's Marine Accident Investigation Branch conducted the investigation under their "Inspector's Investigation" procedure whereby the report is not formally published but is made available to involved and interested parties. The report was sent to the Irish authorities.

  Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many replies were received in response to consultation on the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill. [90973]

  Ms Armstrong
  Two hundred and eighty one written responses have been received to consultation on the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill, published in the Paper "Local leadership, local choice". Of these, only one has asked to remain confidential. A list of the rest has today been placed in the Library of the House and full copies of these have been made available in my Department's library for public scrutiny. Copies of the responses have also been passed to the Joint Committee which is currently examining the draft Bill.

  In addition, 2,351 pre-printed postcards were received as part of a campaign by Charter 88 calling for the use of proportional representation in local government elections. One of these has also been placed in my Department's library.

  Trains (Bicycle Spaces)
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and South West Trains, how many bicycle spaces were available on each five car Wessex Electric train operated by South West Trains in(a) January 1998 and (b) May 1999; and if he will establish the reasons for the change in provision. [90841]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In January 1998 bicycles were carried in the Guard's Van on South West Trains' Wessex Electric five car units. The number of bicycles which could be accommodated was dependant on the other demands for this space. A rebuild of the stock which was 18
  completed in May 1999 resulted in the former Guard's Van being replaced by 16 extra seats and a new area created for luggage. This included a dedicated bicycle rack designed to hold five machines. The reason for this decision was that commuters on SWT continue to experience overcrowding on their commuting journeys to London—in 1998 there was a 9.8 per cent. increase in the number of passengers. The Franchising Director's latest figures for Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC), issued on 29 March, show that SWT's PIXC count was 3.9 per cent. against a target figure for the combined peaks of 3 per cent. Consequently SWT were required to agree a remedial plan with OPRAF. The provision of the 16 extra seats and consequently change in the arrangements for the carriage of bicycles was agreed by OPRAF as one of the remedial measures.

  Road Traffic Reduction
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the principal councils which have submitted a report to him under the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997; if he will list(a) the reductions in the levels of local road traffic and (b) the reduction in the rate of growth in the levels of such traffic contained in these reports; and what assessment of the road traffic reduction potential described in these reports he has made. [90952]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Statutory reports under the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 are to be submitted—other than those produced by London Boroughs—in July 2000, as part of the first round of full local transport plans (LTPs). In London, the statutory reports will be linked with the submission of local implementation plans by the Boroughs, taking account of the Mayor's transport strategy. Authorities should also be submitting non-statutory 'interim' road traffic reduction reports at the end of July 1999, as part of their provisional LTPs—or as part of interim transport plans (ITPs) in the case of London Boroughs.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90165]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members, in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  South West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place
  19
  in the Library a list of the regional stakeholders who were invited to nominate members for the South West Regional Development Agency. [90956]

  Mr. Meale
  The appointments to the Boards of the RDAs were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 14 December 1998. A table which lists the regional stakeholders who were invited to nominate members for the Board of the South West Regional Development Agency has been placed in the Library of the House.

  My Department has recently initiated a fresh round of recruitment for appointments to the Boards. A table which lists the regional stakeholders in the South West who have been invited to offer nominations has also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Candidates for the Boards of the RDAs have been sought from as wide a field as possible. In addition to seeking nominations from stakeholders we have advertised in the national, regional and ethnic press.

  HFC Emissions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate what percentage of emissions of HFC used as refrigerant gases come from systems used in(a) manufacturing industry, (b) commercial offices, (c) public sector offices and (d)(i) retail and (ii) domestic premises. [90958]

  Mr. Meale
  Data are not available for exactly these sectors, but the latest published data from 1995 show that in the UK the percentage of emissions of HFC gas in use as a refrigerant were as follows:(a) 2.4 per cent. from manufacturing/industrial refrigeration
  (d)(i) 73 per cent. from supermarket refrigeration
  (d)(ii) 1.2 per cent. from domestic refrigeration.

  Of the remaining emissions 6 per cent. are from small commercial sources, 1.2 per cent. are from cold water chillers (which may be found in any sector), 16 per cent. are from vehicle air conditioning and 1.2 per cent. are from refrigerated lorries.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has commissioned or evaluated on the chemical content of bottom ash from incinerators; if its use as road-making material complies with his Department's specifications; and if he will make a statement. [90356]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Research carried out in 1993 for the Department of Transport looked into the chemical content of bottom ash from the incineration of municipal waste and its possible use in road construction. This concluded that due to the high concentration of soluble metals (eg. lead, zinc and arsenic) and sulphates, incinerator wastes are not suitable for use in road works in their unbound state. In certain circumstances it was suitable when combined with cement.

  The specification used by the Highways Agency currently permits incinerator bottom ash to be used for road maintenance and construction in cement bound, lower strength road materials. High strength concrete
  20
  made with incinerated municipal waste, even when sintered with clay, has not proved to be of suitable quality for use in road pavements.

  Research is continuing to extend the use of incinerator bottom ash in construction.

  Mobile Phones (Car Drivers)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers of a vehicle which is in transit. [89234]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My noble Friend Lord Carter stated the Government's position in the Second Reading debate on Lord Davies of Oldham Private Peer's Bill to make it an offence to drive while using a hand-held mobile phone. We are not persuaded at the moment that specific legislation is desirable.

  Existing road traffic legislation places the responsibility on drivers to have proper control of their vehicles at all times. Any motorist who fails to do so, for whatever reason, is liable to prosecution. Drivers may be charged with failing to exercise proper control of a vehicle, or either careless and inconsiderate driving or dangerous driving, if using a mobile phone causes them to drive in such a manner. The Association of Chief Police Officers considers that this existing legislation is sufficient for the police to deal with cases arising from the use of a mobile phone while driving.

  We believe that we are best placed to concentrate our efforts on publicising the dangers of using a mobile phone while driving. A publicity campaign was mounted last year. If persuasion is unsuccessful, we would be prepared to consider legislation at some time in the future.

  Conflict Resolution Techniques
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the techniques used to resolve conflict within his Department and the circumstances in which each is used. [90548]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department's Complaints and Grievances Procedures provide for the resolution of disputes through informal local discussion between the parties or through formal independent investigation. Disputes over appraisal assessments are settled through local discussions or a review by a senior officer. The industrial relations practices and procedures in the Department are designed to enable management and the Trades Unions to endeavour to resolve difficulties through consultation and negotiation.

  Objective 1 Programme (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what means the director of the dedicated executive that will manage the Objective 1 programme in South Yorkshire will be recruited. [90625]
  21
  Mr. Meale
  The management arrangements for the Objective 1 programme in South Yorkshire are currently being discussed between the South Yorkshire partners and the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber. These discussions include the role and appointment of the director.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) [edestrians and (b) cyclists were (i) killed, (ii) seriously injured and (iii) slightly injured in road accidents in the last year for which figures are available; and how many were under the age of 18 years in each category. [90854]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The numbers of pedestrians and cyclists recorded as being killed, seriously injured and slightly injured in road accidents, and the numbers of those who were aged under 18 years, are shown in the table.

  Road accident casualties by road user type, severity and age: GB 1998

  Number of casualties

  Casualty type

  Severity of casualty

  Pedestrian

  Cyclist

  All ages

  Fatal

  906

  158

  Serious

  9,575

  3,154

  Slight

  34,405

  19,611

  Total

  44,886

  22,923

  Under 18

  Fatal

  120

  35

  Serious

  3,988

  1,072

  Slight

  15,729

  7,247

  Total

  19,837

  8,354

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the factors and indices used to determine the provision of area cost adjustment additions to standard spending assessments for local authorities. [90775]

  Mr. Meale
  The factors for the area cost adjustment are described in Annex D to the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999–2000 (HC 143). The numeric values of the factors for each authority are set out in Annex H to that report.

  Pesticide Tax
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish details of the models, proposed in the ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. study commissioned by his Department on a pesticide tax, to examine the economic effects of a pesticide tax on(a) farm incomes and (b) farmers' behaviour. [90955]

  Mr. Meale
  The details of the models are set out in the Ecotec report which was published on 24 March.
  22

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Television Licences
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many television sets there are in the Parliamentary Estate; and how many licences are held. [90639]

  Mrs. Roe
  There are approximately 1,600 television sets within the Parliamentary Estate; buildings used and occupied by Parliamentary or Government employees do not require a television licence for sets used for official purposes. Television sets used for leisure or recreational purposes need to be separately licensed and a multiple licence is held for this throughout the Parliamentary Estate.

  Parliamentary Time
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the President of the Council how much time has been devoted to debate on the floor of the House, excluding questions and statements, on the subjects of(a) education, (b) health and (c) age of consent, in the present session to date. [90784]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Although it is clearly difficult to decide in some cases whether a debate falls under a particular heading, I am advised that the figures are:Health: 55 hours and 28 minutes
  Education: 17 hours and 1 minute.

  The Committee stage on the Floor of the House on clause 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill took 3 hours and 38 minutes.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Council what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by her within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90158]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the
  23
  number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88471]

  Mr. Michael
  In common with some other Government departments the Welsh Office has signed a protocol with the EC under which UK Internal Audit units and the EC's Financial Control directorate co-ordinate audit work on EC structural funds. There is one annual plenary meeting with the EC's Financial Control directorate attended by the Head of Internal Audit of each relevant department, a representative of HM Treasury and a representative of the European Court of Auditors. The Welsh Office's Head of Internal Audit attended the meeting of March, 1999.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90148]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scales specified in his question could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Jordan
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the current level in pounds sterling of United Kingdom bilateral aid to Jordan. [R] [90337]

  Clare Short
  Last year our programme to Jordan was about £3.5 million. This year we plan to spend up to £4 million.

  UN Relief and Works Agency
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. [90343]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In 1998 we increased our contribution to United Nations Relief and Works Agency's (UNRWA) core budget by £1 million to £7 million, and in addition provided project funding and technical assistance of about £1 million. This year we plan similar levels of expenditure. We would be prepared to consider giving more if UNRWA implements measures to increase its efficiency and transparency.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are 24
  available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by her within (a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90160]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members, in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ministerial Meeting
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the purpose and location of the meeting between the Minister for the Arts and Mr. Ed McBride, of the US President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities on 25 February. [90426]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Mr. Ed McBride was a guest at a lunch organised and hosted by the British Council in Washington DC which I attended in order to develop an understanding of arts policy in the United States. I was particularly interested to learn about the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities' Coming up Taller awards, which seek to focus attention on how the arts can make a difference in the lives of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are committed to promoting access and educational opportunities in the arts precisely because we believe that the arts can make a difference in peoples' lives and can assist in the fight against social exclusion in this country.

  National Collections Centre
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funds have been provided for the National Collections Centre from(a) the Government, (b) the National Lottery and (c) private sources since its inception. [90616]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government have allocated £1.4 million over the next two years to the National Museum of Science and Industry, for purchase of the site for the National Collections Centre and its refurbishment.

  A bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund is being considered. No private funding is currently involved.

  National Foundation for Youth Music
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of children who will benefit directly from the National Foundation for Youth Music. [90612]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The National Foundation for Youth Music is an independent body, and is responsible for identifying its outreach without reference to Ministers. The Foundation's ultimate aim is to ensure that all
  25
  children have the opportunity to access music-making, particularly those who for geographical or other reasons are currently denied such access.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the total amount of money raised in lieu of tobacco sponsorship to date by the Tobacco Sport Sponsorship Task Force. [90615]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  All sports will be given up to July 2003 to secure alternative sponsorship and those meeting the criteria for global sports will be allowed up to July 2006. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has maintained close contact with the seven sports seeking assistance from the Tobacco Task Force. All these sports have existing contracts running at least up to 2001 and until 2003 in most cases.

  It is too soon to be looking to replace existing contracts and our help can most effectively be targeted in the 12 to 18 months before these lapse, which is the normal lead time for negotiating new sponsorships. In the meantime, the Task Force will be advising the sports on how they can reposition themselves in the market place and supporting them in building new commercial relationships which can be sustained. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has also recently had a very positive meeting with Richard Branson about possible help he can offer.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many hits his Department's website has received since 1 January. [90606]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's website has received over 1.3 million hits since 1 January 1999.

  "Our Healthier Nation"
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) discussions and (b) meetings (i) he and (ii) the Minister for Sport had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding the White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation". [90614]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Officials from both Departments met in advance of the publication of the Health White Paper to ensure full integration between "Our Healthier Nation" and my Department's forthcoming sports strategy. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport will be meeting my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health later this month to discuss opportunities for further collaborative work between our Departments.

  Pirated Material
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the British(a) film and (b) music industries of the distribution and sale of pirated material; and if he will make a statement. [90844]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The recent launch of the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (AACP) highlighted figures estimating a loss of revenue in 1998 of:(a) £120 million for the UK video industry (British Video
  26
  Association research); and, (b) £10 million for the UK music industry (British Phonographic Industry/British Association of Record Dealers research), due to counterfeiting and piracy.

  The Government are committed to the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. We welcome the formation of the AACP. My Department is working closely with colleagues in the FCO and DTI, to improve enforcement and to raise awareness of the value of intellectual property, such as through the Intellectual Property Rights Group of the Government's Creative Industries Task Force, as well as to encourage similar high standards in other countries, through trade negotiations.

HEALTH

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent by the NHS on drugs for cancer treatment in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement; [84243]

  (2) if he will estimate the expenditure per head on oncology services (i) in total and (ii) by type of treatment in (a) the UK, (b) each EU country, (c) Canada, (d) the USA and (e) Japan in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [84241]

  (3) if he will list for each health authority the amount spent on (a) cancer treatment drugs, (b) radiography, (c) cancer surgery and (d) other cancer treatment for the last available year; and if he will make a statement; [84419]

  (4) if he will list the total spending on oncology drugs for each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement; [86628]

  (5) what studies his Department has undertaken into oncology drug funding by health authorities; and if he will make a statement; [86633]

  (6) if he will list the per capita spending on oncology drugs for each health authority in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [86627]

  Mr. Hutton
  Cancer services are estimated to account for 6.3 per cent. (£1,479 million) of National Health Service hospital expenditure in England. The estimated population for England in 1998 was 49.44 million. This suggests expenditure on cancer services of £30 per head of population in England. Information on the cost per head by type of treatment in the United Kingdom and comparable expenditure per head for other countries is not available.

  Information on expenditure per head on oncology services, expenditure on cancer treatment drugs, radiotherapy, cancer surgery and other cancer treatments and details of per capita spending on oncology drugs for each health authority is not available. The Department has not undertaken any studies into oncology drug funding by health authorities.

  Information collected by the Department shows the net ingredient cost of drugs used in the treatment of cancer and dispensed in the community in England since 1992. This is shown in the table.
  27

  Expenditure on cancer drugs in England since 1992–97

  £ million

  Net ingredient cost

  1992

  42.2

  1993

  46.9

  1994

  56.4

  1995

  65.4

  1996

  76.5

  1997

  85.9

  Notes:

  1. Drugs used for the treatment of cancer are those described in the British National Formulary (September 1998 edition) sections 8.1, "Cytotoxic drugs", 8.2.4 "Interferons", 8.2.5 "aldesleukin" and 8.3 "sex hormones and hormone antagonists in malignant disease".

  2. Some of these drugs may have been used to treat other conditions. It is not possible to separately identify those. In addition drugs other than those in the specified sections may have been used to treat cancer patients.

  3. The data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis system and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors in England. Information on drugs dispensed in hospitals is not available.

  4. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Northern Devon Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will review the clinical indicator data for Northern Devon Healthcare Trust for 1997–98; [88071]

  (2) what assessment he has made regarding Northern Devon Healthcare Trust's clinical performance in relation to that of other trusts; [88072]

  (3) if he will make a statement about the quality of discharge data for 1997–98 clinical indicators for Northern Devon Healthcare Trust. [88070]

  Mr. Denham
  The capture of data and information is highly complex, and this is the first time National Health Service clinical indicators have been published at trust level, supporting one of the Government's main commitments to modernise the NHS and to improve the quality of the services delivered by hospitals and community and primary care services. Some data from some trusts and health authorities were more robust than others.

  It is every trust's responsibility to ensure data are sent and received in good order. The Department will be working with all trusts to review the quality of the data provided and to agree actions for continuing improvement. A toolkit is also being developed with a clear purpose to support the interpretation and use of the indicators.

  We do not propose to re-publish 1997–98 data this year. However, the 1997–98 data tables will be re-published in 2000 as part of the 1998–99 clinical indicator set.

  Palliative Care
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ensure that the new clinical guidance indicators cover palliative care in hospitals; [88668]
  28
  (2) what his Department is doing to ensure that hospitals fulfil their duty to ensure palliative care is delivered to a high quality in a hospital setting. [88665]

  Mr. Hutton
  In June 1998, the Department endorsed and distributed throughout the National Health Service, under Health Service Circular 1998/115, three documents of good practice in palliative care produced by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services, which were already widely used in the voluntary sector. One of these was "Palliative Care in the Hospital Setting", which describes key aspects of palliative care provision in the hospital setting.

  The other two documents were "Guidelines for Managing Pain in Adults" and "Changing Gear—Guidelines for Managing the Last Days of Life in Adults".

  The Department is currently working to develop national standards and performance indicators for cancer. This will include work on palliative care.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings of the JCC he has attended. [89275]

  Ms Jowell
  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.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the guidance set out in EL 95/97 in respect of relapsing/ remitting multiple sclerosis remains his Department's advice to health authorities. [89831]

  Mr. Denham
  Yes.

  Orthopaedic Physiotherapy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average waiting period for orthopaedic physiotherapy by health authority in England. [89677]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on average waiting times for physiotherapy is not available centrally.

  Drugs
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the estimated additional cost to the NHS of the use of branded drugs to generic drugs on the NHS category D list for the periods(a) June 1998 and (b) June 1999, assuming average dispensing levels for such drugs; [90054]

  (2) what was the cost differential between the branded and generic versions of the drugs which appeared in the most recent NHS category D list. [90053]

  Mr. Denham
  Generic drugs are included in Category D of Part VIII of the Drug Tariff when community pharmacies are having difficulty obtaining supplies at the Drug Tariff price. Inclusion in Category D means that the price reimbursed to the pharmacy will be either the Drug Tariff price or, if the prescription is appropriately endorsed, the list price of the supplier from whom the drug was purchased. In some cases it may be necessary for the pharmacy to purchase a branded equivalent. for
  29
  many of the drugs concerned there will be a wide range of suppliers—in some cases both branded and generic—and hence prices. This means that calculating the thousands of permutations of price differential between the various branded versions and their many generic equivalents could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to raise public awareness of toxic shock syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [89966]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department works closely with the Toxic Shock Syndrome Information Service (TSSIS) to raise awareness of Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS) among young people. The TSSIS provide a wide range of factual materials to increase awareness of TSS among both the public and the health profession. Earlier this year a joint mailing initiative was undertaken between the Department and the TSSIS to inform all media doctors and agony aunts of TSS. A letter about the work of the TSSIS and an information pack was sent out free of charge to enable them to advise their readers on the condition. Research by TSSIS suggests that awareness of TSS among young people is high.

  In addition, the Absorbent Hygiene Products Manufacturers Association's Voluntary Code of Practice ensures that clear warnings about TSS are printed on the outside of every pack of tampons, and a leaflet inside the pack gives advice about the safe use of tampons and what to do if suspected TSS symptoms are experienced.

  Training Standards
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures exist for NHS hospitals to ensure that staff training standards are consistently reviewed; and what performance targets are set. [90361]

  Mr. Denham
  Decisions regarding the training of National Health Service staff are most effectively taken by local employers. Local training and development plans should reflect nationally recognised standards for training and development, like Investors in People; guidance issued by the Department, like Modernising Health and Social Services: Developing the Workforce published under Health Service Circular 1999/111, and standards set by the regulatory bodies.

  Essential Car User Allowance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for NHS community midwives to be entitled to essential user car allowance; and if he will make a statement. [90645]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service community midwives who are employed on national terms and conditions may be already entitled to a Regular User allowance of up to £760 per annum in accordance with Section 24 of the General Whitley Council Handbook, copies of which are available in the Library. NHS trusts are free to determine their own arrangements for staff on local contracts.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day between May 1997 and 14 April 1999; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that named day. [91069]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 337.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within,(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90153]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members, in the 1998 calender year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which is replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he plans to respond to the letter of 24 May from the hon. Member for North Essex to the Prime Minister about cancer services in North Essex, which was referred to him by the Prime Minister's Office on 17 June; and if he will make a statement; [90544]

  (2) when he plans to respond to the letters from the hon. Member for North Essex about cancer services in North Essex, dated 6 May; and if he will make a statement. [90543]

  Ms Jowell
  My noble Friend Baroness Hayman replied to the hon. Member on 9 July offering a meeting to discuss the services in North Essex.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls were made to the NHS Direct phone line in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available. [90957]

  Mr. Denham
  The information on the number of calls to NHS Direct for each of the last 12 months is shown in the table.

  Thousand

  Month

  Calls

  1998

  June

  5.6

  July

  6.8

  August

  7.1

  September

  6.3

  October

  6.6

  November

  6.8

  December

  10.2

  31

  Thousand

  Month

  Calls

  1999

  January

  10.9

  February

  16.5

  March

  23.7

  April

  55.0

  may

  69.4

  Source:

  NHS Direct site

  Cancer (Waste Incineration)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the information held by his Department on the incidence of cancers amongst people living in areas surrounding waste incinerators; and what recommendation his Department has made on emissions from incineration. [90353]

  Ms Jowell
  The study of cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators, which was funded by this and five other Government Departments, was published in the British Journal of Cancer in 1996 (Elliott P., Shaddick G., Kleinschmidt I., Jolley D., Walls P., Beresford J. and Grundy C. (1996). Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain. British Journal of Cancer, volume 73, pp 702–710). This study found no evidence of an excess incidence of most of the cancer types studied among populations living near incinerators, although an excess incidence of liver cancer was reported. Because of particular problems with the accurate diagnosis of liver cancer, the Department has funded a further study to review the diagnosis of the liver cancer cases found in this study. The results of this study will be published in due course.

  The Department does not make specific recommendations on emissions from incineration. However, the Department works closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which has lead policy responsibility for industrial emissions controls, and also with the Environment Agency, which has regulatory responsibility for Integrated Pollution Control.

  Prodigy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State
  for Health what assessment he has made regarding the
  ability of Prodigy to deliver the latest practical clinical
  guidance. [90248]

  Mr. Denham
  The recommended treatments in Prodigy have been chosen on the basis of clinical effectiveness, safety and appropriateness, and take account of existing national or well-recognised guidelines, where these are appropriate to general medical practice. When new products are introduced, they are added to the Prodigy system if appropriate and as soon as is practical. The commissioning and maintenance of the Prodigy guidance will come under the overview of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Details of how NICE will take this forward will be published in due course.

  Investing in Dentistry
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health
  how many dental practices in England have benefited
  from the Investing in Dentistry initiative. [90953]
  32
  Mr. Denham
  The Investing in Dentistry initiative ended in April this year. 301 Investing in Dentistry funding requests have been approved, primarily to help towards the cost of opening of new dental practices, relocating practices to larger premises, and providing extra surgeries in areas where there have been problems of access to National Health Service dentistry. A number of applications are currently being assessed. The applications approved so far will provide over 700,000 patients with the opportunity to access NHS dental services.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral Statement of 6 July 1999,Official Report, columns 821–23, what plans he has to replace the Investing in Dentistry scheme. [90539]

  Mr. Denham
  We are currently reviewing possible options on how best to use the resources available to build on the success of the Investing in Dentistry initiative in improving access to National Health Service dental services. A dental strategy is due to be published later this year.

  Fittleworth Medical Ltd.
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons why payments from the Barnsley Health Authority to Fittleworth Medical Ltd. were withheld on the advice of the Prescription Pricing Authority. [90808]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that Barnsley Health Authority has not withheld payments from Fittleworth Medical Ltd.

  Carers Grant
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by authority the amounts awarded under the Carers Grant for 1999–2000. [90517]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Promoting Independence: Carers Special Grant Allocations 1999–2000 are set out in Annex A of Special Grant Report (No. 44), a copy of which was laid before the House of Commons on 23 March 1999. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Waiting Lists (Suffolk)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on the hospital waiting list for the Suffolk Health Authority area; and what was the average length of time spent on the waiting list (a) in May 1999 and (b) in May 1997. [90452]

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

  Figures for May 1997 are not available as information was collected on a quarterly basis until April 1998.

  Number of people waiting for elective admission in Suffolk Health Authority and the average waiting time in months

  Date

  Total waiting

  Mean average waiting time to admission (months)

  31 May 1999

  15,750

  4.11

  30 June 1997

  16,546

  4.42

  Source:

  Department of Health
  33

DEFENCE

  Submarine Upgrade
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to upgrade submarines, in addition to HMS Splendid, to carry Tomahawk missiles. [91153]

  Mr. George Robertson
  HMS Triumph will be upgraded to carry Tomahawk land attack missiles in autumn 1999, followed by HMS Trafalgar and HMS Spartan next year. Longer term plans are that the full fleet of 10 nuclear powered submarines will be upgraded to carry TLAM by 2008.

  Gulf War (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder)
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians were seconded to the armed forces during the Gulf Crisis; and, of those, how many are known to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. [84952]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 June 1999, c. 209]: I regret that some of the information in my answer was incorrect. The last sentence of my answer should have read:
  "As at 26 May 1999, 14 civilian contractors who worked in the Gulf had been seen by MAP physicians. The total number of civilians seen by the MAP at that date was 77."

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1999,Official Report, column 148, on the radio programme "Costing the Earth", if he will place in the Library a copy of the Minister of State's contribution; and what assessment he has made of the (a) extent and (b) consequences of the use of depleted uranium ammunition. [87896]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 24 June 1999]: As I indicated in my reply of 16 June 1999, Official Report, column 148, we did not tape the BBC Radio 4 programme "Costing the Earth" which was broadcast on 7 June. I am advised by the BBC's Copyright Adviser that if the Library of the House requires copies of the transcript of the broadcast, which would include my contribution to the programme, it should apply in writing to: BBC Information, Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London, W1A IAA.

  Reserves Manning and Career Management Division, Army Personnel Centre

  Rank

  Location

  Number in each grade1

  Number of personnel with public sector experience

  Number of personnel with private sector experience

  Detail

  Regular Military Personnel—Res MCM Div. APC

  Colonel

  Glasgow

  1

  1

  1

  TA Officer

  Major

  Glasgow

  1

  0

  1

  —

  Major

  Worthy Down

  1

  0

  1

  —

  WO2

  Glasgow

  1

  1

  1

  —

  WO2

  Worthy Down

  1

  0

  0

  —

  1 Some personnel have both private and other public sector employment experience

  34
  The potential hazards of depleted uranium (DU) are well understood and documented in scientific literature. The Ministry of Defence itself has published two reports on depleted uranium. In 1993, the Defence Radiological Protection Service published a summary report of its assessment of the potential hazards posed by depleted uranium; and in March this year I published a paper entitled "Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict: The Current Position". Copies of those documents have already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets he has set for the speed and accuracy of salary payments by the Reserves Manning and Career Management Division in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement. [88870]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: The Territorial Army and Reserves Manning and Career Management Division of the Army Personnel Centre (APC) in Glasgow is not responsible for the payment of the salaries of Territorial Army or Reserve Forces personnel. Responsibility for pay record administration rests with the appropriate Pay Division within the Personnel, Pay and Pensions Administration (PPPA) Directorate of the APC. The performance target for the creation of an accurate Pay Account is 92 per cent. created within five working days of notification of enlistment, commission or conversion from a reserve to a regular or mobilised engagement.

  Once an accurate and timely pay account has been created, the responsibility for the delivery of pay rests with the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA) in the case of bank payments, and Unit administration offices in the case of cash payments. AFPAA's key target for 1999–2000 in respect of pay delivery requires 100 per cent. of payments to be made by the due date, with errors not exceeding 2.5 per 1,000 payments.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military, (b) retired military and (c) civilian personnel, by rank or grade are employed at (i) the Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre at Chilwell and (ii) the Reserve Manning and Career Management Division in the Army Personnel Centre, Glasgow; and how many in each category have experience of employment in (1) the private sector and (2) the public sector other than in their current employment. [88871]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: As at 28 June 1999, the details requested by number, grade and previous employment experience were as listed in the tables.
  35

  Rank/Grade

  Location

  Number in each grade1

  Number of personnel with public sector experience

  Number of personnel with private sector experience

  Retired Military Personnel

  RO1

  Worthy Down

  1

  0

  0

  RO1

  Glasgow

  1

  1

  1

  RO2

  Glasgow

  2

  1

  1

  Civilian Personnel

  EO

  Glasgow

  3

  1

  2

  AO

  Worthy Down

  2

  0

  0

  AO

  Glasgow

  30

  18

  22

  AA

  Glasgow

  2

  1

  1

  1 Some personnel have both private and other public sector employment experience

  Reserves Training and Mobilisation Centre, Chilwell

  Rank

  Location

  Number in each grade1

  Number of personnel with public sector experience

  Number of personnel with private sector experience

  Details

  Lt. Col.

  Chilwell

  1

  0

  0

  Reg

  Maj

  Chilwell

  7

  1

  3

  Reg

  Capt.

  Chilwell

  7

  3

  5

  4 x Reg; 3 x FURS (FC)

  WO1

  Chilwell

  1

  1

  0

  Reg

  WO2

  Chilwell

  5

  0

  4

  Reg

  C. Sgt.

  Chilwell

  8

  1

  5

  6 x Reg: 2 x NRPS

  Sgt.

  Chilwell

  21

  7

  16

  14 x Reg: 7 x FURS (FC)

  Cpl.

  Chilwell

  8

  0

  5

  7 x Reg: 1 x FIRS (FC)

  L. Cpl.

  Chilwell

  1

  0

  1

  Reg

  Pte.

  Chilwell

  2

  0

  2

  Reg

  1 Some personnel have both private and other public sector employment experience

  Note:

  1. Reg=Regular Army

  2. FTRS(FC)=Full Time Reserve Service (Full Commitment). Civilians on one year military contracts. Representative of 20 per cent. of the Military establishment.

  3. NRPS=Non Regular Permanent Staff. Ex-Regulars employed on individual contracts by the Army. They hold Army rank and wear uniform

  Civilian Personnel

  Grade

  Location

  Number in each grade1

  Number of personnel with public sector experience

  Number of personnel with private sector experience

  EO

  Chilwell

  1

  1

  0

  AO

  Chilwell

  8

  8

  6

  AA

  Chilwell

  1

  0

  1

  Snr. Storekeeper

  Chilwell

  2

  2

  2

  Storekeeper

  Chilwell

  3

  2

  2

  Asst. Storekeeper

  Chilwell

  2

  2

  2

  Dvr. Artic

  Chilwell

  1

  1

  1

  1 Some personnel have both private and other public sector employment experience

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on liaison between(a) the Reserves Manning and Career Management Division in Glasgow and (b) the Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre at Chilwell and the employers of TA volunteers and regular reservists; and if he will make a statement. [88869]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: The Army Personnel Centre, Manning and Career Management (TA and Reserves) Division, is responsible for making payments to employers under the financial assistance arrangements set out in the Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations (SI 1997/309). It therefore has contact with all employers whose employees have been called out for permanent
  36
  military service. The Army Personnel Centre also has contact with employers on other matters related to the call-out of an individual. The Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre at Chilwell is not expected to have contact with employers as a matter of course but there may be occasional contact to resolve particular administrative matters or to pass on information.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within,(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90154]
  37
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999 Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Service Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of the FADEC software was rewritten, and when, prior to the Chinook Mk 2's release into service; [89945]

  (2) if he will list the incidents involving electrical problems on Chinook helicopters between 1992 and 1996; [89969]

  (3) on what occasions the findings of gross negligence against the pilots of a Chinook helicopter which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 have been reviewed; by whom; and if he will publish the findings of the review; [89943]

  (4) if he will list the occasions when his Department discounted pilot error as a cause of an aircraft crash which involved fatalities in the last 10 years; [90082]

  (5) if he will list the software design and systems integration problems experienced from February to July 1994 as referred to in a note by the Assistant Director, Helicopter Projects on 11 January 1995; [89944]

  (6) if he will list the occasions in the last 15 years when a service aircraft crashed because of an uncommanded flight manoeuvre without pilot error; [90083]

  (7) what reports his Department has received from the United States Army about the FADEC-equipped Chinook which crashed in the US in March 1996; [89962]

  (8) if the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment was able to read FADEC software without the use of automated tools prior to the crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994; [89946]

  (9) what guarantees his Department received from EDS-SCICON that it found the FADEC software on the Chinook Mk 2 to be satisfactory. [90081]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  1 will write, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gurkhas (Pension Entitlements)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review he is conducting of the war pension entitlements of Gurkha soldiers following the death of Sergeant Balaram Rai in Kosovo; when he expects to complete his review; and if he will make a statement. [89897]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 6 July 1999]: As I announced on 1 July 1999, Official Report, column 471, I have set up a group to examine Gurkha pensions and gratuities. I will chair the group which
  38
  will take into account all aspects of Gurkha pensions and gratuities within the context of the Tri-Partite Agreement between Nepal, India and the UK. I expect the work to be completed by the end of the year.

  Military Records (Balkans)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what orders have been given and arrangements put in hand for the repatriation, cataloguing and storage of(a) paper-based and (b) electronic records of (i) the allied rapid reaction corps since its deployment from Germany to Macedonia and Kosovo and (ii) every British military unit since their deployment as part of joint allied operations in Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro. [90260]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There are long-standing procedures already in place, set out in Service Instructions, which cover the creation and return to MOD UK of appropriate records of operational deployments by British forces. MOD is of course in touch with British forces in the Balkan theatre on this matter.

  Such records, whether in paper or electronic format, once returned to the United Kingdom are handled in accordance with the Department's standard procedures to make them available for MOD purposes, and for subsequent archiving and consideration for eventual transfer to the Public Record Office in accordance with the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967.

  The Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps is however a NATO force; accordingly the treatment of the records from HQ ARRC itself must also reflect NATO requirements.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the sum of £100 million set aside from the proceeds of the sale of the married quarters estate to Annington Homes Ltd. in 1996 for the refurbishment and upgrading of married quarters remains outside and additional to the Defence budget. [90626]

  Mr. Spellar
  The £100 million additional funding derived from the proceeds of the married quarters estate to Annington Homes Ltd. in 1996 was added to the Defence Programme at the time of the sale. This funding is ringfenced and on current expenditure plans is expected to have been fully utilised by FY 2002–03.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the £100 million earmarked from the sale of the married quarters estate has been(a) spent and (b) committed to be spent on upgrading and refurbishment of married quarters in each year from 1996 to 2002 inclusive. [90630]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  Spent

  1996–97

  8.0

  1997–98

  20.0

  1998–99

  20.0

  Committed

  1999–2000

  20.0

  39

  Year

  £ million

  Balance uncommitted

  2000–2001

  20.0

  2001–2002

  10.0

  2002–2003

  1.6

  MOD Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he has made to the Ministry of Defence Police regulations since 30 March 1998. [89388]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None. However, changes to the MDP Complaints and Discipline regulations, in parallel with those introduced for Home Department Police Forces, are currently subject to consultation with interested parties.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure his Department's computer systems are millennium compliant; how many officials of his Department are tasked on the issue and how many of them are technically qualified; and how many consultancy staff are supplementing in-house resources. [89824]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has a comprehensive Year 2000 programme, which has been in place since 1996. The focus of the programme is on the maintenance of Defence capability across the millennium period. Around 75 per cent. of MOD critical systems are now compliant, with the remainder due to be made compliant and tested by the end of the year.

  There are currently approximately 1,170 full and part-time officials working on Y2K within MOD, with 215 consultants supplementing the in-house staff. All have the skills necessary for the tasks allocated to them.

  A programme of audits, using both internal and external specialist assessors, has been established to assure the quality of the work undertaken. A series of exercises is underway to demonstrate the adequacy of technical compliance measures and contingency.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June, on DERA, if his public/private partnership proposals for DERA will permit it to borrow freely on the private financial market. [89811]

  Mr. Spellar
  No decisions have been made on the future of DERA. If the outcome of the DERA Public Private Partnership study is that we establish DERA as a private company, it would have freedom of access to the private capital markets like any other private company.

  RNAS Culdrose
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has evaluated on the effects of noise pollution caused by operations directed from RNAS Culdrose in Cornwall. [90245]
  40
  Mr. Spellar
  A noise survey was undertaken in 1996 at RNAS Culdrose and noise levels caused by the air operations at the station were measured. A noise map was produced from the survey and used to identify those homes that qualified for a grant under the MOD's voluntary noise insulation grant scheme. In addition, MOD has sponsored or reviewed a number of research studies on the effects of noise pollution which, although not specific to RNAS Culdrose, are generally applicable to air operations.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's houses or flats there are in the Borough of Oadby and Wigston which are unoccupied; of that number, how many there are for which his Department has no immediate plans to use for military personnel and their families; and what plans his Department has to(a) lend, lease or otherwise dispose of these dwellings to a housing association, the borough council or other landlords for civilian rented use and (b) sell the freehold. [90243]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD currently has a stock of 64 Service Families Quarters at South Wigston which are owned by Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) and underleased from them by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE). DHE plans to release 34 of these properties back to AHL in December 1999. It will then be for AHL to decide the future of these properties. An estate of 30 properties for use by Service families will remain. Of these seven properties are currently unoccupied, although three will shortly be occupied by Service families.

  Armed Forces Personnel Debate
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will write to the hon. Member for Solihull on the matters raised in the debate on Armed Forces Personnel, 1 July 1999,Official Report, columns 464–534. [90262]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Yes, I will write very shortly, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Aircraft Sorties (Iraq)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties have been undertaken by British aircraft over Iraq since 1 January. [90142]

  Mr. George Robertson
  RAF aircraft undertook some 1,600 operational sorties in the period 1 January to 30 June 1999 in pursuit of their mission to prevent Saddam's air forces from persecuting the Kurds and Shia Muslims of northern and southern Iraq. The figure includes sorties by aircraft such as VC 10 tankers which, although directly involved in this mission, did not enter Iraqi airspace.

  Centre for Defence Medicine
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the NHS trusts that expressed interest in becoming the host for the Centre for Defence Medicine. [90627]
  41
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Eighteen Hospital Trusts expressed an interest in becoming the host for the Centre for Defence Medicine by responding to a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire. The full list is as follows:

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital Trust

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Bristol NHS Trust

  North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Northern General Hospital NHS Trust (Sheffield)

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Salisbury Healthcare NHS Trust

  St. Richard's Hospital, The Royal West Sussex Trust

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  The Lothian University Hospitals Trust (Edinburgh)

  The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  The Royal Hospitals Trust

  The University College London Hospitals Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  University Hospital NHS Trust (Nottingham).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Waste
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions are taken by his Department to restrict price fluctuations of waste(a) glass, (b) paper and (c) household metal waste. [90349]

  Dr. Howells
  These wastes constitute potential secondary raw materials and internationally-traded commodities which compete with virgin supplies. Their prices are best set by the operation of the market rather than by Government. However, we are committed to increasing recycling rates and consider the development of new and stable markets for recycled materials as being key to achieving this objective. A range of options for action which might assist in this process have been identified for the DTI by the Recycling Advisory Unit at AEA Technology plc, in a report entitled "Development of Markets for Recycled Materials", and these will be considered in tandem with the recently-published recommendations of DETR's Market Development Group.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each of the past 10 years the total of energy produced by waste incineration; how many incinerators were operating in each of those years; and what is his Department's estimate of the fuel efficiency of incinerators compared to coal, gas and nuclear generation. [90352]

  Mr. Battle
  Eleven energy from waste projects contracted under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation arrangements in England and Wales generated almost 981 GW hours of electricity in 1998 and in so doing derived value from about 2 million tonnes of waste and 42
  made around 100,000 tonnes of ferrous metals available for recycling. These facilities operated with an average load factor in excess of 80 per cent.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day between May 1997 and 14 April 1999; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that named day. [91070]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 307.

  Credit Card Fraud (Mobile Telephones)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the adequacy of arrangements to detect and prevent credit card fraud by users of pay-as-you-go mobile telephones. [90447]

  Mr. Wills
  I am aware of some cases where credit cards have been used fraudulently to buy additional minutes for pre-paid mobile phones. I understand that the mobile phone operators have taken measures to prevent such use of credit cards and continue to implement tighter controls. While I am not aware of any representations being made to the DTI on this issue, I shall keep it under review.

  Textphones
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 1999,Official Report, column 33, concerning public textphones, what factors underlie the difference between the figures provided and those in the answer of 17 November 1997, Official Report, column 52; what assessment he has made of British Telecom's plans to increase provision by 2000; what were the results of the Oftel consultation; and what plans there are for the further consultation exercise. [90451]

  Mr. Wills
  The difference between the figures given in 1997 and in my answer of 28 June lies in variations in the needs of establishments which public textphone users frequent, and numbers fluctuate marginally over time. BT's plans in 1997 to increase numbers of public textphones by 2000 have been superseded by Oftel's subsequent consultation on improving telecommunications services for people with disabilities. BT is discussing future needs with disability groups.

  Following the consultation, Oftel has recommended that the Secretary of State introduce new regulatory requirements including requirements for public textphones. The Government are planning to consult later this year on measures to improve access to telecommunications for the disabled.

  Inward Investment (South-West)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the level of inward investment into the South West Government Office region for the last five years for which figures are available. [90962]
  43
  Mr. Wills
  The following figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimate, at that time, of the number of jobs to be created/safeguarded by the investment in its first three years.

  There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the Department's Invest in Britain Bureau and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. Comprehensive capital expenditure details are often not available at the time of the decision to invest, and are therefore not included.

  Region/year

  Number of the projects

  Total number new jobs

  Total number safeguarded jobs

  Total number associated jobs

  South west

  1993–94

  12

  1,065

  1,112

  2,117

  1994–95

  21

  1,366

  707

  2,093

  1995–96

  17

  1,718

  2,582

  4,300

  1996–97

  30

  2,3054

  8,928

  11,232

  1997–98

  40

  3,205

  1,735

  4,940

  Edmonton Incinerator
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what inquiries have been held by his Department into the future expansion of the Edmonton incinerator. [90354]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is currently considering an application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to extend the Edmonton energy from waste power station. As part of that consideration we are obliged to take into action the views of statutory consultees such as the relevant local planning authority and the Environment Agency, as well as other representations and comments made.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) representations and (b) information on public consultations he has received on the future of the Edmonton incinerator. [90355]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has received over 40 representations on the application under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to extend the Edmonton energy from waste power station. The applicant, local planning authority and the Environment Agency have all carried out public consultations on the application.

  Honda, Swindon
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government financial support was(a) requested and (b) given for Honda's investment in Swindon announced on 6 July. [90545]

  Mr. Battle
  There was no Government financial support requested or given for Honda's further investment in their Swindon plant.

  Agency Steering Board
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if private sector representatives on the Agency Steering Board will be remunerated. [90298]
  44
  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: Private sector representatives on Agency Steering Boards are not remunerated, but receive an honorarium.

  Enterprise Council
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if members of the Enterprise Council will be remunerated. [90297]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: No decision has been taken. The proposal to create the Enterprise Council, its composition and related matters are covered by the consultation exercise currently underway on the Small Business Service.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to advertise the post of the Small Business Service Chief Executive. [90296]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: We are hoping to advertise the post of Chief Executive of the Small Business Service in the near future. The post will be publicly advertised.

  Insolvency and Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to abolish the floating charge. [90329]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: A re-assessment of the relative rights and remedies of secured creditors in insolvencies, including the position of creditors secured by floating charges, is part of the Terms of Reference of the Joint Department of Trade and Industry and HM Treasury Review of Company Rescue Mechanisms which I announced on 2 February 1999, Official Report, column 580. It was subsequently agreed that the review should make a final report by the end of 1999.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes he intends to make in respect of(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise as priority creditors in bankruptcy cases. [90330]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: A re-assessment of the position of the Crown as a preferential creditor in insolvencies is part of the Terms of Reference of the Joint Department of Trade and Industry and HM Treasury Review of Company Rescue Mechanisms which I announced on 2 February 1999, Official Report, column 580. It was subsequently agreed that the review should make a final report by the end of 1999.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will define responsible risk-takers for the purpose of proposed changes in bankruptcy law; and if he will make a statement. [90331]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: I intend to issue a consultation document on this issue in the future.
  45

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department will publish the results of the consultation on competition in connections in the street lighting sector. [90382]

  Mr. Battle
  The consultation was carried out by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM). I understand that it is OFGEM' s intention to publish a follow up document, outlining their proposals resulting from the consultation, in the near future.

  Financial Services Industry
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future role of the Office of Fair Trading in the monitoring of the financial services industry. [R] [89319]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 July 1999]: The duties of the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) in relation to the financial services industry under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will not change under the Financial Services and Markets Bill. When the prohibitions in the Competition Act 1998 come into force on 1 March 2000, agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings, and concerted practices which may affect trade in the UK and have as their object and effect the restriction, distortion or prevention of competition will be prohibited subject to certain exclusions. Any conduct on the part of one or more undertakings which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position affecting trade within the UK and which may affect trade in the UK will also be prohibited. These prohibitions will apply to the financial services industry subject to certain exemptions and exclusions. The DGFT will have powers to carry out investigations if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting either of these prohibitions has been infringed, to bring infringements to an end, and to impose penalties. The DGFT will continue to scrutinise the rules of the Financial Services Authority, self regulatory organisations, investment exchanges and clearing houses using his powers in section 122 of the Financial Services Act 1986 and will report to the Treasury on any that appear to him to restrict, distort or prevent competition to a significant extent.

  Photovoltaic Energy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to encourage the development of the generation of electricity from photovoltaic roofing tiles; and if he will make a statement. [89189]

  Mr. Battle
  Photovoltaic (PV) systems which may be incorporated into the fabric of buildings offer the prospect of clean and silent electricity production and are a form of renewable energy which is clearly suited to an urban environment. However there are a number of barriers to the deployment of PV, of which the most significant is the current high cost of the modules. My Department is working with the PV industry to reduce the barriers. In February I announced three new PV initiatives: a call for R&D proposals for components and systems; a field trial of 100 domestic PV systems and the design of a scheme to demonstrate PV on large commercial and industrial buildings. A total of 28 responses to the call for proposals 46
  have been received, of which 14 are related to building integrated PV. In addition there are two PV roofing product development projects currently underway with support from DTI. The domestic PV field trial scheme is currently under discussion with the industry. I hope to make an announcement regarding the third initiative later in the year.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the opening of the Scottish Parliament on 1 July. [89926]

  Dr. Reid
  The costs which will be borne directly by the Scottish Office, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament Corporate body are expected to be in the region of £670,000. Some invoices have yet to be received and therefore the final cost cannot be identified at present.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each local authority in Scotland, the gross(a) contribution to and (b) receipts from the non-domestic rates pool for 1998–99. [90093]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information requested is given in the table. As the non-domestic rates pool operates across years, contributions and receipts are not directly comparable in any single year. The pool ensures that each authority receives its share of central government support (Aggregate External Finance) each year according to its relative need as assessed by Grant Aided Expenditure levels.

  Contributable and distributable amounts of non-domestic rate income for Scotland in 1998–99

  Contributions1

  Distributable amount (receipts from the pool)

  Aberdeen City

  98,283,648

  59,112,000

  Aberdeenshire

  50,003,631

  61,879,000

  Angus

  17,733,533

  30,141,000

  Argyll and Bute

  31,505,985

  24,716,000

  Clackmannanshire

  10,783,558

  13,280,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  33,050,236

  40,159,000

  City of Dundee

  39,949,830

  40,880,000

  East Ayrshire

  23,491,480

  33,289,000

  East Dunbartonshire

  19,414,595

  30,133,000

  East Lothian

  23,594,974

  23,981,000

  East Renfrewshire

  12,001,739

  23,965,000

  City of Edinburgh

  184,069,509

  122,123,000

  Eilean Siar

  4,972,986

  7,858,000

  Falkirk

  41,123,076

  38,918,000

  Fife

  94,650,060

  95,038,000

  Glasgow City

  200,827,273

  167,718,000

  Highland

  55,807,806

  56,783,000

  Inverclyde

  20,110,974

  23,698,000

  Midlothian

  12,002,030

  21,777,000

  Moray

  20,399,596

  23,538,000

  North Ayrshire

  35,455,084

  37,961,000

  North Lanarkshire

  55,350,594

  88,682,000

  Orkney

  5,415,131

  5,387,000

  Perth and Kinross

  34,595,937

  36,070,000

  Renfrewshire

  53,298,462

  48,580,000

  Scottish Borders

  17,950,509

  28,868,000

  Shetland

  11,750,912

  6,263,000

  47

  Contributable and distributable amounts of non-domestic rate income for Scotland in 1998–99

  Contributions1

  Distributable amount (receipts from the pool)

  South Ayrshire

  30,218,419

  31,189,000

  South Lanarkshire

  59,208,458

  83,651,000

  Stirling

  24,585,152

  22,515,000

  West Dunbartonshire

  23,109,090

  26,054,000

  West Lothian

  45,219,494

  41,022,000

  Scotland

  1,389,933,761

  1,395,228,000

  1 Contributions = Provisional Contributable Amounts adjusted to take into account flows in and out of NDR Pool in 1998–99 for previous years.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within,(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90155]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90162]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members, in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Records
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to encourage communications between members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by 48
  the Public Record Office and individual members of the Advisory Council on Public Records about those facilities. [90169]

  Mr. Vaz
  For some years the Council has published information about itself and a list of members, with an invitation to communicate with the secretary, on notice boards at the Public Record Office in Kew and the Family Records Centre in Islington and on the Advisory Council's pages on the Public Record Office website.

  Some members of the public who are users of the Public Record Office facilities have communicated with members in order to bring matters of concern to them to the attention of the Council.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance the Lord Chancellor has issued since May 1997 to members of the Advisory Council on Public Records on the provisions of (i) Instrument No. 12 (Access to Public Records) of 1966, and (ii) the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991. [90170]

  Mr. Vaz
  None.

  Separation of Powers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further safeguards the Lord Chancellor plans to introduce to prevent political influence over matters which are properly the province of the judiciary. [90538]

  Mr. Vaz
  None. The judiciary are not subject to political influence. Their independence is already fully protected by long-standing laws and convention and by the office of Lord Chancellor.

  Court Case Adjournments
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps his Department takes to monitor the extent to which cases before the courts are adjourned; what statistics he collects on the subject; and what plans he has to limit the use of adjournments or to monitor more closely how adjournments are used. [90311]

  Mr. Vaz
  Information on the number of ineffective Crown Court trials is kept, but no central reports on adjournments is collected for civil cases. Applications for cases to be adjourned are varied and adjournments in both civil and criminal cases are judicial decisions in which I cannot intervene. However, since 26 April 1999, there are systems in the civil courts, which monitor adjournments of cases listed for trial and the reasons for adjournment. The whole ethos of the Civil Procedure Rules is that defended cases are managed by the court and adjournments are the exception.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Funding
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1999,Official Report, column 437, on local authority funding, if he will place in the Library tables in paper and machine-readable form which exclude the

  49
  contributions of local authorities from the amounts set out in his previous answer but are otherwise consistent with that answer. [90449]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Details of the revenue grants within aggregate external finance other than revenue support grant for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, for each local education authority, each class of local authority and for England as a whole are given in tables that have been placed in the Library in paper and machine-readable form. The figures shown in the tables exclude contributions made by local education authorities.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the total budget announced since May 1997 for(a) lifelong learning development plans, (b) qualifications, (c) drug prevention, (d) youth service, (e) school security and (f) ethnic minority pupil achievement; and what amount and what percentage of that budget in each financial year is to be (i) spent within his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (ii) allocated in grants; [90558]

  (2) if he will list actual and planned expenditure in each of the last three financial years by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on (a) market research, (b) conferences, (c) direct mail, (d) advertising, publicity and publications, (e) opinion polling, (f) web sites, (g) hospitality, (h) central administration costs and (i) external consultants and advisers in relation to (1) lifelong learning development plans, (2) qualifications, (3) drug prevention, (4) youth service, (5) school security and (6) ethnic minority pupil achievement; [90551]

  (3) if he will list actual and planned expenditure in each of the last three financial years by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on (a) market research, (b) conferences, (c) direct mail, (d) advertising, publicity and publications, (e) opinion polling, (f) web sites, (g) hospitality, (h) central administration costs and (i) external consultants and advisers in relation to (1) infant class size reduction, (2) Phases 1 and 2 of the New Deal for Schools, (3) removal of outside toilets, (4) energy management and (5) asset management plans; [90550]

  (4) what is the total budget announced since May 1997 for (a) reduction in infant class sizes, (b) Phases 1 and 2 of the New Deal for Schools, (c) removal of outside toilets, (d) energy management and (e) asset management plans; and what amount and what percentage of that budget in each financial year is to be (i) spent within his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (ii) allocated in grants; [90549]

  (5) if he will list actual and planned expenditure in each of the last three financial years by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on (a) market research, (b) conferences, (c) direct mail, (d) advertising, publicity and publications, (e) opinion polling, (f) web sites, (g) hospitality, (h) central administration costs and (i) external consultants and advisers in relation to (1) school effectiveness and improvement, (ii) specialist schools, (iii) beacon schools, (iv) school leadership, (v) advanced skills teachers and (vi) numeracy consultants and leading maths teachers; [90552]
  50
  (6) if he will list actual and planned expenditure in each of the last three financial years by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on (a) market research, (b) conferences, (c) direct mail, (d) advertising, publicity and publications, (e) opinion polling, (f) web sites, (g) hospitality, (h) central administration costs and (i) external consultants and advisers in relation to (1) health education partnerships, (2) Year 6 booster classes, (3) books for schools and (4) the children's parliament; [90554]

  (7) what is the total budget announced since May 1997 for (a) school effectiveness/improvement, (b) specialist schools, (c) beacon schools, (d) school leadership, (e) advanced skills teachers, (f) numeracy consultants and leading maths teachers; and what amount and what percentage of that budget in each financial year is to be (i) spent within his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (ii) allocated in grants; [90555]

  (8) what is the total budget announced since May 1997 for (a) health education partnerships, (b) Year 6 booster classes, (c) books for schools and (d) children's parliament; and what amount and what percentage of that budget in each financial year is to be (i) spent within his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (ii) allocated in grants; [90557]

  (9) what is the total budget announced since May 1997 for (a) early years training and development for three and four year olds, (b) early excellence centres, (c) national literacy strategy in primary schools, (d) national numeracy strategy in primary schools, (e) nursery education grant and (f) family literacy; and what amount and what percentage of that budget in each financial year is to be (i) spent within his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (ii) allocated in grants; [90556]

  (10) if he will list actual and planned expenditure in each of the last three financial years by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on (a) market research, (b) conferences, (c) direct mail, (d) advertising, publicity and publications, (e) opinion polling, (f) web sites, (g) hospitality, (h) central administration costs and external consultants and advisers in relation to (i) early years training and development for three and four year olds, early excellence centres, (iii) national literacy strategy in primary schools, (iv) national numeracy strategy in primary schools, (v) nursery education grant and (vi) family literacy. [90553]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A reply to these questions would involve disproportionate cost. General information on expenditure by the Department for Education and Employment, agencies and non-departmental public bodies is given in the annual Departmental Records, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90157]
  51
  Mr. Mudie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 30 March, 29 April and 4 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Pat McGuinness. [90592]

  Mr. Mudie
  A letter in response to all three letters was dispatched to the hon. Member on 8 July 1999.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey concerning the death penalty passed on Abdullah Ocalan; and if he will make a statement. [90347]

  Ms Quin
  We endorse the declaration of 29 June by the EU Presidency, which reflected member states' opposition to capital punishment as a matter of principle, irrespective of the defendant and the offence of which he is convicted. I raised our opposition to capital punishment with senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 7 June, and will do so again during my visit to Turkey this month.

  Jordan
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Government's policy regarding freedom of trade between Jordan and the West Bank. [R] [90335]

  Mr. Hoon
  Trade between Jordan and the West Bank and Jordan and Israel is of central importance to increasing stability and prosperity. The Government support the European Community's Association Agreements with Jordan, Israel and the PLO, and the Euromed process which promotes regional economic and commercial integration. The Government are pressing for further examination of ways to increase trade within the region.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of military assistance to Jordan. [R] [90333]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our budget for the current financial year for military assistance to Jordan is £450,000. This will largely be spent on courses and Short Term Training Teams.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the effects of the sanctions on Iraq on the Jordanian economy. [R] [90334]
  52
  Mr. Hoon
  The Jordanian authorities regularly raise their concern about the effects that sanctions on Iraq have on the Jordanian economy, while continuing to call for Iraq to comply fully with UN Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the United Kingdom has taken to assist the Jordanian Government with debt relief. [R] [90332]

  Mr. Hoon
  We promised King Abdullah to raise debt relief for Jordan with our G8 partners, and did so ahead of, and at, the recent Summit in Cologne. That Summit concluded by calling on the international community to provide economic assistance (for Jordan), including, where appropriate, debt relief. The UK strongly supported the Paris Club decision to reschedule Jordanian debt.

  Jerusalem
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Jerusalem. [R] [90340]

  Mr. Hoon
  Concern for human rights forms an essential part of our policy on the Peace Process. Our Missions in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem monitor the situation closely, including through contacts with NGOs. The UK and the EU regularly raise human rights issues with the Israeli authorities. We also support projects aimed at promoting human rights in Jerusalem through our Consulate General and the British Council. Finally we also raise concerns with the Palestinian Authority about human rights infringements in areas under their authority.

  Drought (Middle East)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the problem of drought in the Middle East. [R] [90336]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is a drought this year affecting the whole of the Middle East. Rainfall is down to a third of normal levels—reportedly the lowest it has been for at least thirty years. It is not possible to assess at this stage whether this year's low rainfall is an anomaly.

  The Department for International Development have prepared an assessment of the drought in the Middle East, a copy of which will shortly be in the House of Commons Library.

  Geneva Convention
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the convening of a meeting of the high-contracting parties to the Geneva Convention in July; and if he will list the issues which Her Majesty's Government intends to raise. [R] [90339]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the period to the convening of a meeting of the high-contracting parties to the Geneva Convention, the highest priority will be to support the efforts of all direct parties to the Peace Process to make progress in the negotiations.
  53

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the Middle East. [90342]

  Mr. Hoon
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no firm plans to visit the Middle East in the near future though such options are kept under review.

  Israel
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about the implementation of the El plan and the expansion of the Ma'ale Adumin settlement. [R] [90338]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have indicated to the Israeli Government our concern that Israeli settlement building and access road construction in the Occupied Territories is an obstacle to peace. We shall continue to do so. Meanwhile, we welcome the stated commitment in Prime Minister Barak's coalition guidelines that no new settlements will be created pending the outcome of the final status negotiations.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty' s Government in respect of recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon. [R] [90341]

  Mr. Hoon
  We were concerned at the recent Hizbullah attacks on northern Israel and the subsequent Israeli bombing of Lebanon. We have made representations to urge all parties to show restraint and to respect the April Understandings.

  Ascension Island
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason he has decided not to charge the United States for the use of Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island for civil charter flights. [90521]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United States Base on Ascension is provided free from rent and charges under the terms of the 1956 Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States America Concerning the Extension of the Bahamas Long Range Proving Ground by the Establishment of the Additional Sites in Ascension Island, as amended. The Base is used by the United States Space Command.

  The 1956 Agreement provides that commercial aircraft shall not be authorised to operate from any of the Sites except in accordance with the provision of an agreement between the UK and US Governments. We are shortly to begin negotiating an Agreement with the US Government which would allow the use of Wideawake by civil flights not engaged in scheduled international air services. This will not affect either the United Kingdom's or the United States' use of Wideawake for military purposes.

  Our proposals anticipate that any civil airline operator who wished to use Wideawake would be expected to pay to do so. If, after amending the 1956 Agreement to allow civil flights into Ascension, a United States carrier did
  54
  wish to operate civil charter flights to the airfield, we anticipate that they would be charged the same rate as other civil operators.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to allow countries, other than the United States of America, the use of Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island for civil charter flights. [90522]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United States Base on Ascension is provided under the terms of the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America Concerning the Extension of the Bahamas Long Range Proving Ground by the Establishment of the Additional Sites in Ascension Island, as amended. This Agreement entered into force in 1956.

  We are shortly to begin negotiating a further Agreement with the US Government which would allow the use of Wideawake by civil flights not engaged in scheduled international air services. Subject to this, we would envisage also allowing civil air operators from countries other than the UK or US to use Wideawake.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90164]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06 which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the timescales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  East Timor
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans are being prepared by his Department for the monitoring of the referendum on the future Government of East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [90344]

  Mr. Hoon
  EU member states will be sending a team of observers to the UN supervised consultation in East Timor.

  Diplomatic Posts (Locally Engaged Staff)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the locally engaged staff in the British Embassies or High Commissions in(a) China, (b) Brazil, (c) India, (d) Indonesia, (e) Pakistan and (f) Nigeria who are paid less than the United Kingdom national minimum wage, together with their hourly salary expressed in the Sterling equivalent [90640]
  55
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This information is not held centrally. To obtain it from the diplomatic posts concerned would involve disproportionate cost.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to send observers from the United Kingdom to monitor the election in Guatemala in November 1999. [90345]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are giving careful consideration, in consultation with other member states of the European Union, as to how we might best respond to any invitation from the appropriate Guatemalan authorities to participate in election monitoring.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held by staff of the British Embassy in Guatemala with political parties and human rights groups concerning the conduct of the elections due to be held in November. [90346]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Ambassador and his staff are in regular contact with politicians, human rights workers and senior election officials about the forthcoming elections. These will be an important step in Guatemala's peace process and the strengthening of democratic institutions.

  British Council
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the loss of Department for International Development contract work to the British Council on his Department's operations in developing countries. [90634]

  Mr. Hoon
  The British Council continues to manage most existing DFID contracts. The lack of new contracts for which to bid will have a progressive effect on the British Council's operation in developing countries over the next few years. The FCO will be working with the British Council and DFID to achieve the most effective co-operation possible in their work in developing countries.

  Treaty of Utrecht
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to abide by all the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht. [90939]

  Ms Quin
  The agreement signed in 1713 and known as the Treaty of Utrecht was part of a series of treaties which ended the War of the Spanish Succession. The full Treaty contained provisions relating to a wide range of areas and issues, many of which are no longer applicable.

  British title to the Rock of Gibraltar is based on Article X of the Treaty. In determining title to the Rock, this remains binding under international law upon the two parties, the UK and Spain. Both parties have so conducted themselves for many years.

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 56
  18 June 1999, Official Report, column 255, for what reason the reports of working groups on legislative proposals are not published for scrutiny prior to decision. [88681]

  Ms Quin
  Government Departments inform Parliamentary scrutiny committees of legislative proposals through the submission of Explanatory Memorandums. These outline the draft proposal, the impact on UK law and the Government's policy towards it.

  The Council's Rules of Procedure state that
  "deliberations of the Council shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy".

  This covers preparatory meetings such as COREPER and Council working groups.

  The Government are, however, committed to the effective parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislative proposals. Departments therefore usually aim to give the scrutiny committees as full a read-out of negotiations as possible while respecting the Council's confidentiality.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his efforts to find a settlement of the situation in Cyprus. [90141]

  Ms Quin
  We remain determined to see a major, sustained effort this year in support of the UN Secretary-General's initiative to secure a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus.

  G8 Heads of Government, in their statement of 20 June, and the UN Security Council, in its resolution 1250 of 29 June, have urged UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to invite the leaders of both Cypriot sides to enter without preconditions into comprehensive negotiations starting in the Autumn, and to commit themselves in good faith to continue to negotiate until a settlement is reached. As a G8 member and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK has been closely involved in this process. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary confirmed to Mr. Annan, during his visit to London on 24–25 June, that he will have our full support in efforts to get negotiations underway.

  China
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on China's human rights record since 1 July 1997. [90134]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since July 1997 China has taken several positive steps which will bring about closer co-operation with UN human rights mechanisms. These include signature of the international covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Civil and Political Rights, and agreement to report to the UN under those covenants in respect of Hong Kong. It has received visits by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN working Group on Arbitrary detention, as well as allowing a visit to Tibet by EU Troika Ambassadors. It has also extended an invitation to visit to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. We have been able to discuss issues of serious concern including the death penalty, religion, Tibet and individual cases in our EU and UK/China dialogues. China has also begun to work
  57
  with the UK and EU on human rights co-operation programmes. Through dialogue we are pressing for further positive steps, including early ratification and implementation of the international covenants, changes on the death penalty and detention regimes.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the deadline for sending an international police task force to Kosovo; and how many of the planned international police task force have arrived to Kosovo. [90130]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  It was agreed at the Friends of the UN Secretary-General for Kosovo meeting in New York on 30 June that the United Nations Mission in Kosovo should acquire the capacity to take over responsibility for policing from KFOR as soon as possible. As of 1 July, 2,400 police had been pledged to the United Nations, out of the total 3,110 required. The UN has already deployed an advance party of 39 police officers to Kosovo to establish a headquarters and to liaise with KFOR. It is expected that the main component of the UN Police Force will start to deploy from 17 July.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many police officers from the UN mission in Bosnia have been deployed to Kosovo. [90131]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As of 7 July, 37 police officers had been transferred from the International Police Task Force in Bosnia to the UN Police Force in Kosovo. A further 40 will follow soon.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the deadline for(a) appointing the UN Secretary General's special representative to Kosovo and (b) appointing five regional administrators to Kosovo. [90129]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UN Secretary-General announced on 2 July the appointment of Bernard Kouchner as his Special Representative to head the United Nations Mission in Kosovo. He has also announced Kouchner's five deputies: Jack Covey as Principal Deputy, Dominique Vian as Deputy for Interim Civil Administration, Dennis McNamara as Deputy: Humanitarian Affairs, Daan Everts as Deputy: Institution Building and Joly Dixon as Deputy: Reconstruction.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK contribution to the civil police in Kosovo. [90132]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  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. We are currently discussing with the United Nations and the OSCE what specific roles these officers might undertake.

  The united Kingdom has already deployed 16 Scene of Crime experts to Kosovo to assist the International War Crimes Tribunal with their investigation of alleged atrocities there.
  58

  Kashmir
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of Kashmir. [90140]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are deeply concerned by the continuing fighting in Jammu and Kashmir, following armed infiltration across the Line of Control. We welcomed the joint statement issued by President Clinton and Prime Minister Sharif on 4 July and look forward to the early implementation of the actions proposed. We consider the dialogue initiated by Prime Ministers Vajpayee and Sharif in Lahore in February offers the best hope of resolving the long standing differences between Pakistan and India and urge its resumption.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong. [90135]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have the highest regard for the integrity of Hong Kong's legal institutions, particularly the Court of Final Appeal. The principles of independent judicial power and final adjudication, which are enshrined in the Joint Declaration, are integral to Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy.

  Korea
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the future stability of the Korean peninsula. [90138]

  Mr. Hoon
  Prospects for stability depend on North Korean readiness to work with the international community to overcome contentious issues. We continue to support South Korea's policy of engagement as a way of encouraging North Korean co-operation.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of North Korea concerning routine international inspection of nuclear sites. [90139]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK is concerned that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is not receiving full co-operation from North Korea. We frequently make clear our views to North Korea, most recently in statements together with our EU partners at the June IAEA Board of Governors and the May Preparatory Committee for the 2000 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We will continue to do so.

  British EU Citizens
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps his Department is taking to ensure the free movement of British EU citizens within the states of the EU. [90133]

  Ms Quin
  Free Movement rights for EU citizens are enshrined within the Treaties. The Government attach importance to ensuring that these rights are upheld.
  59

  Chile
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to improve the UK's relations with Chile. [90144]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had an open and cordial meeting with the new Chilean Foreign Minister, Sr. Valdes, in Rio on 27 June. My right hon. Friend emphasised the need for our two governments to work together to steer our relationship through this difficult period without serious damage. Both agreed to keep open the lines of communication between them.

  Centre for European Reform
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact(a) he and (b) his officials had with the Centre for European Reform, in relation to its lecture programme, during June. [90119]

  Ms Quin
  Ministers and officials have regular contact with a wide range of non-governmental organisations, including the Centre for European Reform. The Government believe that contact with this type of organisation is an important part of running a modern, inclusive government. The Government keep no official log of contact with such groups.

  European Union Activities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total number of (i) Commission decisions, (ii) directives, (iii) Council directives, (iv) Working Group proposals and (v) Committee opinions, agreed in 1998. [89726]

  Ms Quin
  According to the Commission's "General Report on the Activities of the European Union 1998", in 1998 there were 537 Commission Decisions, 44 Commission Directives, 27 Council Directives and 26 Council/European Parliament Directives. These figures exclude instruments not published in the official Journal and routine management instruments valid for a limited period.

  Working groups do not make proposals for legislation. They carry out preparatory work for legislative decisions taken by the Council. There is no central record of the Opinions given by comitology committees. However, all legislation enacted following consideration by comitology committees is published in the Official Journal, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

  European Commission Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 276, concerning secondary employment of senior European Commission Staff; if he will request the information sought from the European Commission; and what his policy is on secondary employment of European Commission staff. [89807]

  Ms Quin
  For reasons of personal confidentiality, the Commission does not publish information about the secondary employment of officials below the level of Commissioner. As my answer of 21 June made clear, it does, however, have a system in place designed to prevent 60
  officials taking outside work which could impair their independence or be detrimental to the work of the Communities. The Government agree that any such secondary employment should be forbidden.

CABINET OFFICE

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88477]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Officials from my Department occasionally attend meetings of Council working groups. Sometimes my Department is represented by officials from the United Kingdom's Permanent Representation to the European Union. I have listed the working groups with which my Department is most closely involved, and the number of times these have met in the last 12 months with a representative from my Department in attendance.

  Horizontal Questions Working Group: 5

  Telecommunications Council Working Group: 7

  General Affairs Working Group: 1

  Quality of Legislation Working Group: 4.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the(a) numbers of and (b) ratio between men and women in public appointments made since 1997. [90181]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Appointments made to non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are the responsibility of individual Ministers and their departments. However, the Commissioner for Public Appointments collects statistics on appointments to NDPBs within her remit on an annual basis. The Commissioner's fourth report, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House, contains information on appointments made during the year ending 31 March 1999.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within,(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90156]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out performance against departmental targets for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year. More detailed information about the percentage of correspondence replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  61

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day between May 1997 and 14 April 1999; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that named day. [91057]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  For the period between May 1997 to 31 March 1999, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 339.

  Owing to the Easter recess there were only three sitting days between the period 1 April—14 April 1999. During that period there have been four named day parliamentary questions tabled to my Department of which 75 per cent. received a substantive reply on the day specified.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Compensation
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the matters, other than those relating to the NIRS2 computer system, in respect of which his Department has paid compensation to members of the public since May 1997. [90540]

  Mr. Timms
  The reasons for which compensation payments have been made to members of the public, other than those relating to the NIRS2 computer system, since May 1997, are as follows:Extra-statutory payments: made in respect of defective legislation where the law has not reflected the original intention of Ministers.
  In addition, payments have been made as a result of Departmental maladministration where any of the following have occurred:
  Actual financial loss: made in respect of losses incurred by customers as a direct result of maladministration;
  Delay: made for the loss of use of money arising where payments have been unreasonably delayed (payment made has been in the form of interest on the arrears due);
  Gross inconvenience: as a result of persistent Departmental error;
  Gross embarrassment, humiliation or unnecessary personal intrusion;
  Severe distress, where maladministration has had a serious impact on a customer's physical or mental health; and
  Loss of statutory entitlement: where entitlement to benefit has been lost due to maladministration or official error.

  Where maladministration occurs the Department aims to restore the person to the position that he or she would have been in but for that maladministration. Payments have been made by DSS agencies as a result of maladministration under all the categories listed.

  Payments made from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999 by Agency are as follows:

  Type of payment

  Number of payments

  Benefits Agency

  Extra-Statutory

  1,333

  Actual Financial Loss

  3,836

  Delay

  2,496

  Consolatory1

  300

  Loss Of Statutory Entitlement

  1,879

  Total

  9,844

  62

  Type of payment

  Number of payments

  Contributions Agency

  Extra-Statutory

  1

  Actual Financial Loss

  653

  Delay

  2,635

  Consolatory1

  95

  Loss Of Statutory Entitlement

  1

  Total

  3,385

  Child Support Agency

  Extra-Statutory

  170

  Actual Financial Loss

  4,264

  Delay

  1,144

  Consolatory1

  4,235

  Loss Of Statutory Entitlement

  0

  Total

  9,813

  War Pensions Agency

  Extra-Statutory

  1,210

  Actual Financial Loss

  8

  Delay

  191

  Consolatory1

  3

  Loss Of Statutory Entitlement

  2

  Total

  1,414

  Independent Tribunal Service

  Extra-Statutory

  0

  Actual Financial Loss

  21

  Delay

  2

  Consolatory1

  12

  Loss Of Statutory Entitlement

  0

  Total

  35

  1Consolatory payments consist of payments made under the categories of gross inconvenience, gross embarrassment, humiliation, unnecessary personal intrusion and severe distress.

  A copy of the Department's guide to special payments, known as the "Financial Redress for Maladministration" is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within,(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90151]

  Mr. Darling
  Figures are not available in the format requested. In the 12 months ending June 1999, Ministers replied to 47 per cent. of letters from right hon. and hon. Members within our target of 20 working days, 37 per cent. within 21 to 40 working days; and 16 per cent. were sent after 40 working days. So far this year, Ministers have answered 60 per cent. of letters within 20 working days. Ministers in my Department reply to around 18,000 letters a year and we are committed fully to improving turnaround times.

  Income Support
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of increasing the earnings disregard on income support to(a) £20 and (b) £ 25 per week. [90753]
  63
  Mr. Timms
  The cost of an earnings disregard for all benefit units on Income Support (IS) of the requested levels is shown in the table:

  Earnings disregard for IS benefit units

  Cost (£ million)

  £20

  20

  £25

  35

  Notes:

  1. Estimates based on February 1999 Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry and the Policy Simulation Model.

  2. Estimates exclude movements between Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and IS, and behavioural effects.

  3. Estimates assume no change to the earnings disregards in Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB).

  4. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £5m.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) of 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 802, how many of the 522 responses the consultation document, "Supporting People", (a) supported, (b) opposed and (c) did not mention, the inclusion of sheltered housing within the proposals; and if he will publish a summary of the responses. [90391]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is not available in the format requested. Of the 522 responses received, 128 referred to the position of sheltered housing. We hope to be in a position to publish the summary of responses shortly.

  Pensions
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority's third annual report; and if he will make a statement. [91149]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received the third report of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA). I am pleased to see that OPRA has now consolidated its position as a respected and effective regulator. I am delighted that it continues to work closely with other organisations in the pensions industry to help, and protect the interests of, members of occupational pension schemes. Copies of the report have been laid before both Houses today.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the next stage of formal consultation on stakeholder pensions policy will commence. [91150]

  Mr. Timms
  The consultation paper "Stakeholder Pensions: Clearing Arrangements—The Government Proposals" is published today. This is the third in a series of consultation papers on stakeholder pensions and further consultation papers will be issued in the coming weeks.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the cost and (b) the effect on the distribution of pensioners aged over 80 years by each income quintile for the population as a whole, of raising the level of basic state pension by (i) £5, (ii) £10 and (iii) £15 per week for this age group. [90249]
  64
  Mr. Timms
  The answer to part(a) is provided in the table. Reliable estimates, of the effects of such changes on the distribution of pensioners aged over 80 years by each income quintile of the population as a whole, are not available.

  Cost of increasing basic state pension paid to pensioners aged over 80

  £ million

  £5

  350

  £10

  720

  £15

  1,130

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for Retirement Pension have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Means-tested benefit offsets have been estimated using the 1999–2000 Income Support Simulation Model and the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey.

  3. Estimates are consistent with the Departmental Report, are in current prices and benefit rates, and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Income Maintenance
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the average weekly Government expenditure on income maintenance per head of population in the United Kingdom. [90118]

  Angela Eagle
  For 1998–99, the total amount of Income Related Benefits paid in GB was £31.5 billion. This equates to an average of £10.50 per week per head of the population.

  Notes:

  1. Income maintenance is taken to mean the main Income Related Benefits (Income Support, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, JSA (income-based), Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance).

  2. Figures are for GB. Figures in Northern Ireland are available separately from the Northern Ireland office.

  3. The weekly figure given is rounded to the nearest 50 pence.

  Data Matching
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions and guidance he has given to staff to forbid them from approaching employers requiring copies of complete databases of personal data; and if he will place a copy of such guidance in the Library. [89593]

  Mr. Timms
  Fraud investigators have the power to request information from employers about their employees under Section 110 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Jobseeker's Act 1995. Guidance on how to operate these powers is contained in a number of Departmental sources. These set out the Department's procedures for deterring and investigating fraud and it would not normally be appropriate to make them public.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the total number of claimant matches undertaken by his Department's data matching programme, (b) the number of matches which resulted in no further action, (c) the number of matches which required investigation by staff, (d) the number of matches

  65
  which, following such investigation, resulted in no further action, (e) the number of withdrawn claims and prosecutions identified by data matching, (f) the cost of the data matching programme so far, including all direct and indirect staff costs and (h) the amounts of benefits saved by the data matching programme. [89591]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Generalised Matching Service

  Year ending

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Anomalies referred for investigation

  —

  62,937

  85,071

  137,307

  139,292

  Referrals resulting in benefit savings or identified overpayments

  —

  20,998

  34,989

  56,290

  87,670

  Referrals requiring no further action pre investigation

  —

  25,862

  32,482

  45,749

  62,719

  Referrals requiring no further action post investigation

  —

  1,668

  4,039

  9,324

  10,565

  Total referrals cleared1

  —

  48,528

  71,510

  111,363

  160,954

  Weekly Benefit Savings

  —

  £28.8m

  £51.1m

  £83.7m

  £154.2m

  Funding

  £2.6m

  £10.7m

  £11.4m

  £14.1m

  £16.5m

  1The Department's data matching programmes are rolling programmes. The referrals they produce can take a number of months to investigate and cannot all be cleared in the year that they are generated.

  Housing Benefit Matching Service

  Year ending

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Anomalies referred to Local Authorities for investigation1

  —

  25,940

  49,084

  Referrals resulting in benefit savings or identified overpayments1,2

  —

  5,235

  15,109

  Weekly Benefit Savings1

  —

  £4,388,496

  £12,970,952

  Recoverable overpayments1

  —

  £2,815,950

  £7,303,508

  Funding3

  £1,617,213

  £2,428,314

  £2,437,313

  1 The 1997–98 figures include the figures for 1996–97.

  2 The Department only records details of the referrals to Local Authorities which result in benefit savings or identified overpayments.

  3 The figures given only relate to the costs of operating the Housing Benefit Matching Service. They do not include the Local Authorities' cost of investigating those referrals, which are not recorded by the DSS. This is a voluntary scheme and responsibility for recording the cost of participation would fall to the Local Authorities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Youth Crime
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on tackling criminal activity by young people. [89226]

  Mr. Boateng
  Following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we are piloting in 10 areas the final warning scheme, a range of new community-based court disposals and Youth Offending Teams. We expect to implement these nationally next year. Under this Session's Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill we are proposing referrals to youth offender panels. The youth justice system is also being speeded up, and we have established the Youth Justice Board to provide advice and promote and monitor local good performance.

  Air Guns
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation to control the use of air guns. [89227]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no immediate plans to change the law relating to air weapons but firearms legislation will be kept under close scrutiny to see if there is anything further which needs to be done to protect public safety. To this end, I have asked the Firearms Consultative Committee, the independent statutory body that advises the Government on firearms matters, to consider again the
  66
  This Department operates two data matching services: the Generalised Matching Service, which matches different DSS computer systems against each other and against data acquired from other Government Departments to identify anomalies for investigation; and the Housing Benefit Matching Service which matches data from Local Authority (LA) Housing and Council Tax benefit administration systems against data held by the DSS and other LAs to identify anomalies for the LAs to investigate.

  controls on air weapons as part of their programme of work for this year. I look forward to receiving their report later in the year and considering any recommendations they may make about airguns.

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Macpherson report. [89230]

  Mr. Straw
  On 23 March I published an Action Plan which sets out how the report's recommendations will be taken forward. Progress has been made on implementing the recommendations in line with the published plan. The Steering Group, which I chair, which has responsibility for overseeing implementation of the report, met for the first time on 18 May. It next meets on 27 July.

  Cricket World Cup
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the measures taken to maintain public order for the cricket world cup. [89231]

  Kate Hoey
  It is a matter for the cricketing authorities and the police to assess the impact of security measures taken during the tournament. The Association of Chief Police Officers are presently compiling a report to see what lessons can be learned from the policing
  67
  arrangements during the tournament. The tournament attracted almost 498,000 spectators and ACPO advise that there were 52 arrests and 323 ejections by stewards from grounds. These figures show that the vast majority of people attended matches for all the right reasons and were able to watch the cricket in a safe and secure environment.

  Kosovar Refugees
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of Kosovan refugees settled into temporary accommodation in Birmingham; and how many have moved from their original locations to London and the south-east. [89232]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Four thousand, three hundred and forty-six evacuees have been airlifted to the United Kingdom under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Humanitarian Evacuation Programme (HEP) from Macedonia. Most have been housed in reception centres in the Midlands, the North of England and Scotland; no reception centres have been established in Birmingham.

  The latest estimates indicate that 572 of the refugees arriving under the HEP have moved from reception centres to London and the South East. A further 115 refugees did not enter reception centres and are thought to have moved to the South East.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the settling of Kosovan refugees into temporary accommodation across the country; and how many have moved from their original locations into London and the south-east. [89245]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Four thousand, three hundred and forty-six evacuees have been airlifted to the United Kingdom under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Humanitarian Evacuation Programme (HEP) from Macedonia. Most have been housed in reception centres in the Midlands, the North of England and Scotland.

  At the reception centres each refugee is given a health check and assigned a GP; children of school age are assigned to a local school; and refugees are put in touch with any known relatives and friends. Reception services for the refugees have been organised by the Local Authorities and the Refugee Council. Airport authorities, the immigration service and local medical services have also been heavily involved.

  The refugees are free to move within the United Kingdom as they choose and it is inevitable that some refugees will go to areas where they have family or where other Kosovans have already settled, including London and the South East. The latest estimates indicate that 572 of the refugees arriving under the HEP have moved from reception centres to London and the South East. A further 115 refugees did not enter reception centres and are thought to have moved to the South East. 179 refugees have moved out of reception centres to other areas.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 1999,Official Report, column 310, how many of the refugees who arrived
  68
  under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme and are not currently resident in reception centres are currently residing at addresses notified to his Department. [90635]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no requirement for refugees arriving under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme to inform the Home Office of their address, and none have done so.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kosovar refugees have been evacuated to the UK since 1 June; and on what dates they arrived in the UK. [90638]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The numbers of arrivals of refugees from Kosovo since 1 June are given in the table:

  Date

  Airport of arrival

  Number of refugees (Immigration Service statistics)

  1 June 1999

  Manchester

  82

  2 June 1999

  Manchester

  142

  3 June 1999

  Manchester

  138

  4 June 1999

  Manchester

  160

  5 June 1999

  Manchester

  163

  7 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  171

  8 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  167

  9 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  165

  10 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  164

  11 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  149

  12 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  158

  14 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  157

  15 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  143

  18 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  135

  23 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford1

  236

  25 June 1999

  Leeds/Bradford

  102

  2 June 1999

  Glasgow1

  234

  Total

  2,266

  1 Medical flight

  2 Nine medical patients

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 1999,Official Report, column 310, how many of the evacuees received from Kosovo into the UK have applied for asylum in the UK. [90637]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available as it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first of the refugees who arrived in the UK under the UNHCR Humanitarian Evacuation Programme will return to Kosovo. [90636]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is our aim that refugees should return home as soon as possible and we are planning to start return flights from 19 July.

  Severe Personality Disorders
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on people with severe personality disorders; and if he will make a statement. [89233]

  Mr. Straw
  My statement to the House on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 601–03, set out our proposals to introduce powers of indeterminate detention

  69
  for dangerously severely personality disorder individuals. The development of this policy has required joint working at all levels between the Home Office and the Department of Health-including extensive discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and myself.

  I am pleased to announce, on behalf of both myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that we will publish the consultation paper on the management of dangerous severely personality disordered individuals on 19 July.

  Police Constables
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police constables were employed in England at the latest date for which figures are available. [89235]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures show that there were 91,047 constables in the 39 police forces in England as at 31 March 1999.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress on the millennium compliance of the date-related computer systems for which his Department is responsible. [89236]

  Mr. Straw
  All business critical computer systems in the Home Department are expected to be Millennium compliant by September 1999. 83 per cent. of these systems are now compliant, with 95 per cent. due to be compliant by the end of this month. 71 per cent. of non-critical computer systems are now compliant, with the remaining systems due to be compliant by November.

  Prison Service, United Kingdom Passport Agency and Forensic Science Service critical computer systems will be compliant by the end of this month, with non-critical systems compliant by August. All Fire Service College computer systems will be compliant by September.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the use to date of anti-social behaviour orders. [89237]

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use to date of anti-social behaviour orders. [89243]

  Mr. Boateng
  We understand that, to date, there has been at least one order granted and that a number of others are in the pipeline. The provisions relating to anti social behaviour orders only came into effect on 1 April 1999. It is, therefore, still early days to know what use local crime and disorder partnerships will make of them.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the Anti-social Behaviour Orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [89241]

  Mr. Boateng
  The provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which introduce Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) came into effect on 1 April 1999. It is,70
  therefore, still early days to know what use local crime and disorder partnerships will make of them. The decision as to whether an ASBO should be granted, however, is a matter for the courts. We understand that, to date, there has been at least one order granted and that a number of others are in the pipeline.

  Passports
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what method he plans to calculate compensation payments to citizens missing overseas trips due to difficulties at the UK Passport Agency. [89238]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Compensation is calculated to restore the claimant to the financial position they would have enjoyed had an acceptable level of service in processing their passports been provided. Each case is considered carefully on its merits and a claimant will be asked to provide documentary evidence of the cost of their loss of an overseas trip and confirm they have made no other claim for compensation.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with measures to reduce delays at the Passport Agency. [89244]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Passport Agency is continuing to prioritise applications by travel dates, and is meeting those dates in 99.99 per cent. of cases. In order to improve on this it is recruiting an additional 100 staff above the 300 already deployed. The Agency is working extended hours and straightforward renewal applications are being exceptionally extended by passport offices, and from 7 July at main Post Offices. These measures have boosted output by 24 per cent. over last year.

  Adverts were placed in the national and regional media on 2 July advising the general public awaiting or applying for a passport what to do. A special telephone helpline has been set up for inquiries.

  The Agency's intake is now falling, and this together with the measures it is taking should enable it to reduce current delays, and get its turnround time down to 10 days by the end of September.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations the Passport Agency made to his Department on the impact of(a) the changes relating to the issuing of passports for children and (b) the introduction of new information technology systems on (i) staffing and (ii) resource levels; and if he will make a statement. [90946]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The impact of separate passports for children and the new Information Technology system were built into the Passport Agency's planning assumptions which underpinned its 1998–99 Business Plan and 1998–2001 Corporate Plan.

  As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the debate on Passport Delays on 29 June 1999, Official Report, columns 140–96, we were aware in late-March that the Agency's turnround times and arrears were higher than expected. An action plan was agreed including the recruitment of 300 extra staff and other measures which the Agency's management believed would deal with the problems.
  71
  The surge in intake from April led to a further deterioration, and further measures have been taken to reduce processing delays.

  The Agency has continued to meet more than 99.99 per cent. of travel dates, and expects to continue to do so. The Agency very much regrets the difficulties that have arisen this year. It aims to reduce its turnround time for clearing straightforward applications to ten days by the end of September.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest situation on delays in issuing passports by the Passport Agency. [89249]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As of yesterday, the number of applications waiting to be processed was just under 500,000, a reduction of 6 per cent. on the previous week's figure. This figure is equivalent to just under four weeks output.

  However more than half of these applications are for people indicating travel dates for August, September and beyond. The Passport Agency is prioritising work according to travel dates, and in the vast majority of cases—99.99 per cent.—applicants are receiving their passports in time to travel. It is taking steps to improve on this. The Agency have employed 300 additional staff, and are recruiting a further 100. It is working extended hours, streamlining its processes and using exceptional extensions to renew passports both at Passport Offices and main Post Offices. The Agency's intake is now falling, and this together with the special measures it is taking will reduce delays and enable it to hit its target of processing all properly completed applications by the end of September.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 1999,Official Report, columns 77–78, how many passport applications have been endorsed with a two-year extension in each week from the week beginning 31 May to the last week for which information is available; and how many of those renewals were of passports which included the names of children aged under 16 years. [90560]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The table shows the number of extensions that have been made in the weeks requested:

  Week commencing

  Number of extensions

  31 May 1999

  5,585

  7 June 1999

  5,141

  14 June 1999

  4,553

  21 June 1999

  4,098

  28 June 1999

  4,530

  Total

  23,907

  Separate records are not kept of extensions made where children are included on a passport.

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that the police give more information to victims of crime about action being taken. [89239]
  72
  Mr. Boateng
  Interim findings from pilot projects established to see how the Victim's Charter commitment to keep victims informed might best be met were promulgated in Home Office Circular 55/1998 of 23 December 1998. Following final evaluation, we hope to issue good practice guidelines to the police, and other agencies, later this year.

  Drug Abuse (Prisons)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of drug abuse in prisons. [89240]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The result of random mandatory drug testing (MDT) provide the best information available on the level of drug misuse in prison. In 1998–99, 18.3 per cent. of random MDT samples were positive for drugs; well within the KPI target of 20 per cent. for that year.

  Cycling Offences
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to give police the powers to levy spot fines on cyclists. [89242]

  Mr. Boateng
  The police already have powers to issue fixed penalty notices for a number of cycling offences. We propose to introduce a further one for cycling on the pavement from 1 August. The fixed penalty is not an on the spot fine, payment will not be required on the spot and the person receiving it can challenge its issue in court.

  Crime Rates
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the changes in crime rates since 2 May 1997. [89246]

  Mr. Straw
  The most recent data available are for the 12 months to 31 March 1998. These show an overall decrease of 8 per cent. in notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in comparison to the previous year.

  MI5
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the role, status and functioning of F Branch of the Security Service since the publication of the Home Office's 1998 booklet about MI5. [89247]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 30 June 1999,Official Report, column 186. The 1998 booklet "MI5 The Security Service" contains a great deal of information about the work of the Service and provides as much information as it is possible to disclose on the subject of interest to the hon. Member.

  Prison Population
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the numbers of(a) young and (b) other offenders in prison (i) currently and (ii) on 1 May 1997. [89248]
  73
  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information is given in the table.

  Population in prisons in England and Wales on 30 April 1997 and 30 April 1999 by type of custody

  Date

  Young offenders1

  Others2

  Total

  30 April 1997

  10,597

  49,534

  60,131

  30 April 1999

  11,334

  53,062

  64,396

  1 Persons aged under 21 years

  2 Persons aged 21 years and over

  Data Protection
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making towards implementing the Data Protection Act 1998. [91227]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The work on the essential subordinate legislation is well advanced, but it will not be completed before the summer recess. We intend to lay the instruments before Parliament in the autumn. To allow business and others adequate time to prepare, we intend to bring the 1998 Act into force on 1 March 2000. Meanwhile, drafts of three further statutory instruments will be published on the Internet at www.homeoffice.gov.uk on 13 July 1999. I am also placing copies in the Library.

  Prison Service
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are taken to ensure that risk assessments in the Prison Service conform to a uniform approach. [90116]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service undertakes risk assessments for a variety of purposes. These need to be based on consistent principles, but responsive to the complexities of individual situations. Arrangements are supported by detailed guidance, defined procedures and standards audit. Prisoners dissatisfied with decisions can make use of the request and complaints procedures.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place to ensure parity of treatment in respect of entitlement to home leave across the Prison Service. [90113]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There is no entitlement to resettlement licence, which replaced home leave in 1995. The criteria for eligibility for resettlement licence is set out in Prison Service Instruction 36/1995, a copy of which is in the Library. The Instruction is mandatory which ensures consistency of treatment in respect of eligibility for resettlement licence.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place to monitor the consistency of approach in the use by governors in the Prison Service of their discretionary powers. [90115]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Eligibility for temporary release does not pre-suppose it will be granted by the governor. Applications from eligible prisoners are considered on a case by case basis and subject to a risk assessment. Governors use their discretion in the light of the risk assessment and reasonableness under the Wednesbury Principle. These decisions are subject to judicial review.
  74

  Women Prisoner (Breastfeeding)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the past year a woman prisoner has been told that she had to stop breastfeeding in order to attend educational or other courses inside a prison. [89344]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no occasions in the past year when a woman prisoner has been told to stop breastfeeding in order to attend educational or other courses inside a prison. The Prison Service supports the good practice of women breastfeeding their babies. A woman prisoner can express milk and leave the milk with nursery nurses to feed her baby or she can leave the class to breastfeed her baby and rejoin when she has finished. The choice is left to the breastfeeding mother.

  The four mother and baby units in the female prison estate actively encourage breastfeeding and pregnant women have access to information and professional advice to enable them to make an informed choice about how to feed their babies.

  Drive for Youth
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met and when he next expects to meet representatives of Drive for Youth. [90747]

  Mr. Straw
  I met the Chairman of Drive for Youth briefly on Monday 5 July. I have no current plans to meet with representatives in the near future, but I have asked them to let me have written representation about their concerns which I shall consider.

  Mr. Jay Abatan
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet a representative group on behalf of Mr. Jay Abatan's family to discuss the actions of the police and the prosecution process following his death after an attack in Brighton. [90747]

  Mr. Straw
  As criminal proceedings are still outstanding in respect of two defendants, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss this case.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90161]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members which are replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tax Discs
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals in Merseyside have been recorded as failing to display a current tax disc in each of the preceding 12 months; how many have been fined; and what fines have been levied. [90695]

  Prosecutions for failing to pay motor vehicle licence duty, Merseyside, 1997

  Failing to pay appropriate duty

  Licence obscured or not affixed

  Month

  Number of prosecutions

  Number of fines

  Average fine (£)

  Number of prosecutions

  Number of fines

  Average fine(£)

  January

  93

  83

  106

  19

  8

  38

  February

  120

  95

  120

  9

  4

  38

  March

  167

  132

  99

  8

  —

  —

  April

  165

  145

  84

  21

  2

  65

  May

  153

  121

  128

  21

  10

  45

  June

  91

  68

  120

  26

  5

  25

  July

  91

  72

  59

  21

  3

  15

  August

  177

  154

  104

  15

  6

  33

  September

  209

  173

  131

  12

  1

  15

  October

  251

  205

  90

  16

  2

  15

  November

  268

  233

  99

  19

  3

  32

  December

  248

  202

  102

  9

  1

  20

  Total 1997

  2,033

  1,683

  103

  196

  45

  35

  In addition to the fine, it is normal for the court to order back-payment of duty and costs.

  There may be additional offences dealt with by means of fixed penalty notices and written warnings but in neither case are figures by individual offence or month held centrally. Figures for 1998 are not yet available.

  Operation CARE
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been(a) charged and (b) arrested in connection with operation CARE (Merseyside); and how many individuals to date have claimed to have been abused and over what period of time. [90696]

  Mr. Boateng
  Operation CARE, which commenced in April 1996, is a joint investigation between Merseyside Police and Social Services Departments into mostly historical allegations of sexual and physical abuse upon children in care establishments and voluntary care settings.

  The table gives an overview of the current situation:

  Period under investigation

  1960–date

  Persons arrested

  66

  Persons convicted

  20

  Persons acquitted after trial

  2

  Persons arrested and no further action

  5

  Persons charged and awaiting trial

  14

  Persons on police bail

  25

  Separate complaints received

  759

  Offenders/suspects

  358

  Police Authorities
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the report into the sparsity element of the funding formula for police authorities. [90631]
  76
  Mr. Boateng
  The available information help centrally relates to prosecutions in Merseyside in 1977 for offences of failing to pay the appropriate motor vehicle licence duty and for having the licence disc obscured or not affixed, the number of fines imposed and the average fine amount.

  Mr. Boateng
  The external research project commissioned by the Home Office examined whether there are any additional costs associated with the policing of sparsely populated rural areas. The final report from the researchers was considered by a Home Office-led Working Group, which includes representatives of the police, police authorities and local authorities, on 8 July. The Home Secretary and I will be considering the report shortly, and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Children's Passports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his reasons were for deciding that summaries of court orders should not be endorsed on children's passports. [90516]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Where children hold passports, a court can require the surrender of a passport and so the endorsement of a court order may not be necessary.

  However, there has not been a decision that summaries of court orders should not be endorsed on children's passports. This issue has been considered by the Parent/Carer Child Abduction Co-ordinating Group, which is an inter-departmental group of officials, together with Re-unite. The Group will be looking at the effectiveness of introducing endorsements of the passports of children at risk of abduction.

  Mrs. Sabina Morison
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is expected that a decision will be reached on the application of Mrs. Sabina Mbiri Morison (Home Office reference M636323) to have the deportation order on her lifted. [90840]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The papers relating to Mrs. Morison's case are not immediately available and I regret that it is accordingly not possible to give an indication of the likely timescale involved. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Prisoner Repatriation (Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for prisoner repatriation to the Republic of Ireland are under consideration; and how many of these are from prisoners convicted of terrorist offences. [89905]

  Mr. George Howarth
  48 applications for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland are currently under consideration, including three from prisoners convicted of Irish terrorist related offences.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what, in each year since 1997, was the average length of time taken for a prison transfer from the submission of a successful application to their arrival in the Republic of Ireland for(a) IRA prisoners and (b) non-IRA prisoners. [89906]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Average periods1, from date of submission of a successful application for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland to date of arrival in the Republic, in 1997 and 1998

  Prisoners convicted of terrorist related offences2

  Non-terrorist prisoners

  1997

  Approximately 9 months

  Approximately 23 months

  1998

  Approximately 10 months

  All applications submitted in 1998 remain outstanding

  1 Not all applications were resolved in the same calendar year as that in which they were submitted

  2 Details of prisoners' alleged paramilitary affiliations are not centrally recorded

  Local Inmates Database System
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the principal functions of the Local Inmates Database System; how many records the system contains; under what fields information is recorded about inmates; what would be the cost of adding an extra field to this system; how many fields would be required to monitor the ethnic composition of the prison population along the lines of the proposed questions for Census 2001; and what arrangements are in place to link information on inmates detained elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [89907]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Local Inmates Database System (LIDS) operates at each public prison to support the administration of prisoners' sentences. It covers a wide range of administrative functions including the recording of all movements of prisoners including: reception, transfers to and from courts, adjudications while in prisons; details of prisoners earnings and private cash; related work and activities; and all forms of release. It holds a broad set of information needed to support these processes, much of which is transferred to a separate central system which supports overall management and monitoring of the Prison Service. LIDS records are transferred automatically between prisons in England and Wales when prisoners move location.
  78
  The individual prison LIDS systems hold full details of all current prisoners and those who have recently been released. The total number of records held, therefore, varies according to the size of the overall prison population but is generally some 20,000 to 30,000 above this.

  In addition to standard fields such as name, date of birth, place of birth, the system holds several hundred fields supporting the functionality described. The cost of adding an additional field to the system is heavily dependent on the extent to which the change can be combined with other activity, whether it warrants significant staff training or needs complex programming.

  LIDS already has fields which hold details of ethnic origin, country of birth and place of birth. The coding system used for these fields is not identical to that proposed for the Census in 2001 but could be adapted for that purpose.

  There are no arrangements in place to link LIDS data with similar systems maintained by other jurisdictions.

  Learmont Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his response to the Learmont Inquiry. [89908]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) on 26 January 1999,Official Report, columns 201–02.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are detained in each special secure unit; and if he will list for each(a) the nature of crime for which the prisoner was convicted, (b) the (i) national origin and (ii) citizenship of the prisoner, (c) their special category status, (d) their length of detention in the unit and (e) how many medical examinations have been conducted in that time; and what supervisory mechanism is in place to ensure that any abnormal medical observations are acted upon. [89909]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 5 July 1999, seven prisoners were held in special secure units (SSUs), five at Whitemoor and two at Belmarsh. Only prisoners categorised as category A exceptional escape risk are held in SSUs.

  The table gives the information requested including the number of three monthly medical reviews conducted. These reviews are part of the operating standards for SSUs and are provided in addition to the normal health care facilities available to every prisoner. Any prisoner who is observed to be presenting abnormal medical conditions will be discussed by the senior medical officer and the unit governor. The senior medical officer will provide or recommend medical services as appropriate according to his judgment.
  79

  Category A exceptional risk prisoners held in special secure units

  Nationality

  Offence

  Time spent in SSU

  Number of three-monthly health reviews

  Turkish

  Importation and supply of drugs

  4 months

  2

  British

  Murder

  2 months

  1

  British

  Conspiracy to supply drugs

  1 month

  0

  British

  Armed robbery

  2 months

  0

  American

  Conspiracy to murder

  3 years

  7

  Colombian

  Customs evasion

  2 years

  6

  Turkish

  Conspiracy to supply drugs

  7 months

  2

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to address deficiencies in the completion of visitor records for the special secure unit at Whitemoor Prison; and on what dates between 1 September 1998 and 1 April 1999 the Governor of Whitemoor Prison visited its special secure unit. [89910]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The operating standards for the special secure unit at Whitemoor include a requirement for weekly visits by the governing governor or, in his absence, a nominated representative. These visits are recorded. This is in response to recommendation 44 of the Woodcock report that frequent supervisory visits should be carried out and recorded in a matrix to be produced monthly to the prison governor. The table provides the specific information requested.

  Governor's visits to Special Secure Unit at Whitemoor Prison

  Visitor

  Governor

  Nominated representative

  1998

  September

  8,14,29

  23

  October

  6,13,16

  29

  November

  16,25

  5,9,19

  December

  7,22,25

  11

  1999

  January

  18,28

  5,15

  February

  19,26

  1,11

  March

  3,16,19,29

  (2 April)

  Firearms
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to pay interest on the compensation paid to gunholders who have handled firearms under the Firearms (Amendment) Acts. [90541]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no provision to include interest as part of the payments made under the terms of the statutory firearms compensation scheme. Compensation claims made under this scheme are not commercial debts requiring payment within the standard 30 days.

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what evidence he based his statement to the Police Federation on 19 May concerning the proportion of either-way cases in the previous year in which defendants chose to be heard before a jury and the plea was changed to a guilty one. [90754]

  Mr. Boateng
  Crown Prosecution Service statistics for 1998 show that 18,500 defendants elected trial in 1998 in addition to 46,800 either-way cases directed to the Crown
  80
  Court by magistrates. During the same period 74 per cent. of all defendants pleaded guilty before the commencement of the Crown Court trial.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the list of questions put to the VAT authorities of the other member states and the Commission on the interpretation of Article 13.B(d)(1) to (6) of the Sixth Directive and the responses received. [88921]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Member states and the Commission were asked a number of questions designed to ascertain the meaning of the Directive term "negotiation" by reference: to the equivalent terms used in each Community language and the national laws of Member states; to any litigation in national courts; and to a number of case studies drawn from the UK courts.

  This consultation was undertaken on an inter-governmental confidential basis, and publication of member states' responses would breach the confidence of the authorities consulted.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to paragraph 10 (Other Comments) of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Summary of Responses (May 1999) to the VAT: Consultation Document on European Commission Proposal for Revised Rules on Input Tax Deduction, how many contributors(a) questioned what exchange rate would be used if foreign invoice amounts had to be converted to sterling, (b) suggested that it would be beneficial if all accounting were in euros and (c) suggested that the periodic rates of exchange published by Customs and Excise should be used. [88917]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Six contributors questioned what exchange rate should be used if foreign invoice amounts had to be converted to sterling; three suggested that it would be beneficial if the accounting were in euros; and three suggested that the periodic rates of exchange published by Customs and Excise should be used.

  Company Liquidations
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies were put into receivership or liquidation at the suit of(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97, (iv) 1997–98 and (v) 1998–99. [90294]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: The following figures show the number of company liquidations in England and Wales on Inland Revenue and

  81
  HM Customs and Excise petitions, and also show those numbers as a proportion of the total number of company liquidations. Receiverships usually result from actions by debenture holders, and neither the Inland Revenue nor Customs take such actions.

  Year

  Inland Revenue

  Percentage of total liquidations

  HM Percentage Customs and Excise

  Percentage of total liquidations

  1994–95

  761

  5

  2,409

  15

  1995–96

  646

  4.5

  2,121

  15

  1996–97

  625

  5

  2,120

  16

  1997–98

  438

  3.5

  1,785

  14

  1998–99

  519

  4

  11,399

  10

  1 Latest available figure

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals were made bankrupt at the suit of(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Her Majesty' s Customs and Excise in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97, (iv) 1997–98 and (v) 1998–99. [90295]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: The figures in the following table show the number of individual bankruptcies in England and Wales on Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise petitions, and also show those numbers as a proportion of the total number of individual bankruptcies.

  Year

  Inland Revenue

  Percentage of total bankruptcies

  HM Customs and Excise

  Percentage of total bankruptcies

  1994–95

  2,179

  9

  2,270

  10

  1995–96

  2,217

  10

  2,524

  11

  1996–97

  2,677

  12.5

  2,884

  14

  1997–98

  2,428

  12

  2,548

  13

  1998–99

  1,863

  9

  1,8481

  9

  1 Latest available figures

  Savings Income (Overpaid Tax)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 1999,Official Report, column 229, concerning overpayment of tax on savings income, what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Department for Social Security concerning the Taxback campaign. [90453]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue are planning to have discussions with a number of organisations, including the Department of Social Security, during the summer about a possible Taxback campaign next year.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the current applicants to the EU are not required (i) to adopt the euro immediately on accession or (ii) to join an exchange rate mechanism. [90756]

  Ms Hewitt
  The accession partnerships between the European Union and the accession countries state that the applicants are not expected to adopt the euro immediately on accession. The partnerships do however require the applicants to pursue policies aimed at achieving real convergence with the European Union, with the 82
  ultimate goal of adoption of the euro. The partnerships impose no obligation to join the exchange rate mechanism, which remains voluntary for all member states.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90163]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year.

  More detailed information about the percentage of correspondence replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Tax Evasion
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has agreed, with the relevant professionals, guidance on the conduct by corporate clients which they should regard as evidence of overseas tax evasion in cases where they are obliged to report suspicion thereof to the NICS. [89921]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group, a body of representatives from the financial services industry, chaired by the British Bankers Association, provides guidance to the financial sector on money laundering issues. They have recently consulted the Treasury and Home Office on new guidelines on the proceeds of tax-related crimes, including those committed overseas. Those guidelines have now been published, and are endorsed by the Treasury.

  Under the Criminal Justice Act 1993, financial institutions should report to the National Criminal Intelligence Service all transactions which they suspect involve the proceeds of criminal conduct. This obligation is a central element of our defence against money laundering, and provides valuable intelligence in the fight against crime. The obligation applies equally to the proceeds of overseas offences (including overseas tax offences), where the conduct would have been criminal if it had occurred in the UK. "Evidence" is not required: the obligation applies where there is knowledge or suspicion that the relevant conduct has occurred or is occurring.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he will make to the letter addressed to him by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in relation to the compatibility of maintaining coal burn in electricity generation with the stated aim of the climate change levy. [88741]

  Ms Hewitt
  The climate change levy is expected to save around 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010, thereby making a significant contribution to meeting both the legally binding target for reducing greenhouse emissions
  83
  set under Kyoto Protocol, and the Government's domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.

  The final rates of the climate change levy will not be set until the Finance Bill 2000. It is proposed to set them on an "energy" basis with one rate applying to all electricity. This is entirely consistent with the Government's Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation, which identified distortions in the generation market as a potential threat to the security and diversity of energy supplies and announced a programme of reform to ensure fair competition between fuels.

  It also reflects the fact that under current electricity trading arrangements it is only possible to determine the carbon content of electricity as a broad average with a downstream tax. Thus, the extent of switching between fuels is likely to be limited with a tax set to reflect the carbon content. Given that the carbon content of electricity is changing all the time, a tax structured on an energy basis also has the advantage of simplicity.

  We are liaising closely with DTI colleagues on how electricity trading arrangements might change in the future. We have also consulted on the specific issue of whether it might be possible to offer tax relief to new forms of renewable sources of electricity like wind power. The consultation document issued by Customs and Excise on Budget day asked for views on whether—and if so, how—this could be done.

  Savings (Marginal Tax Rates)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effective marginal tax rates on income from savings for pensioners, and the number of pensioners at each level. [88808]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If all taxpaying pensioners received an extra £1 of (non-dividend) savings income, then 3.1 million of them would pay 20p more tax, 150,000 would pay 25p more tax, 200,000 would pay 30p more tax and 150,000 of them would pay 40p more tax.

  These numbers are based on the 1996–97 Survey of Personal incomes projected to 1999–2000. Pensioners have been defined as women aged 60 and over and men aged 65 and over.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the number of cars which will attract the small engine size rate of vehicle excise duty announced in his last budget. [89300]

  Ms Hewitt
  Over 1.8 million cars are recorded by DVLA as eligible for the reduced rate of VED for cars of 1100cc or less. This represents approximately 8 per cent. of the total recorded by DVLA as licensed in the Private and Light Goods vehicle class.

  Well-known manufacturers currently producing cars with engines up to 1100cc include Citroen, Daewoo, Daihatsu, Fiat, Hyundai, Seat, Suzuki, Vauxhall and Volkswagen.
  84
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from owners of cars under 1120 cc concerning the engine size level at which the lower rate of vehicle excise duty was set in his budget; and if he will make a statement. [89301]

  Ms Hewitt
  In his March Budget, the Chancellor detailed how changes to vehicle excise duty will encourage the use of more fuel efficient vehicles. He announced a cut in the vehicle excise duty rate for those cars with engines up to 1100cc and, that from Autumn 2000, a new system of graduated vehicle excise duty would be introduced for all new cars based upon the level of carbon emissions.

  We have received representations from people whose vehicles are just over the threshold.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will refund the vehicle excise duty of new car owners whose engine capacity exceeds 1.1 litres by 0.05 litres. [89923]

  Ms Hewitt
  In his March Budget, the Chancellor announced a reduced vehicle excise duty rate of £100 for both new and existing cars with engines up to 1,100cc as recorded on the vehicle registration document.

  Unfortunately it is inevitable that, however small the margin, some people will miss out at the boundaries of any threshold.

  Banknotes
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the new 20 pound note does not have a £ sign. [89264]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 July 1999]: The design of notes is a matter for the Bank of England.

  The new £20 note features the numeral 20 in the top corners of both sides and the pound sign appears before three of those. The exception is before the numeral in the top right hand corner above the portrait of The Queen.

  To assist the partially sighted (and tourists who may be unfamiliar with the note), all four numerals have been designed to be as large and as bold as possible in the limited space available; to maximise this visibility, the pound sign was omitted in one place. In addition the words "Twenty Pounds" appear on both sides of the note.

  Financial Services Industry
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the terms of the Financial Services and Markets Bill require a reduction in the powers of the Office of Fair Trading in the monitoring of the financial services industry. [R] [89320]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 July 1999]: There is nothing in the Financial Services and Markets Bill which requires a reduction in the powers of the Office of Fair Trading to monitor the financial services industry. On the contrary, it will extend the powers which the Office has to scrutinise the regulatory activities of the Financial Services Authority.

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome is of the Treasury's review of the future status of the Royal Mint. [91238]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 8 July 1998,Official Report, column 569, the then Economic Secretary announced the terms of reference of a review of the Royal Mint. The review was wide ranging with the aim of identifying the actions needed to enable the Royal Mint to develop closer partnership with the private sector. The review was conducted by the Treasury working closely with the Royal Mint's management and taking the views of employees and other interested parties.

  After weighing the options, the Government have decided in favour of a new direction for the Royal Mint, which will bring it up to date with best practice in the private sector. A package of measures will put the Royal Mint on a modern, commercial footing updating the way it is run, the business it does, and its relationship with the Treasury, private partners and customers.

  This a bold step forward in the Government's approach to managing their agencies. The new framework will make the Treasury a better shareholder and the Royal Mint a better enterprise to the benefit of all stakeholders. It will ensure the Royal Mint makes the best possible use of the opportunities it faces, including the ability to offer an extended range of goods and services and to make fuller use of its expertise and its capacity.

  The new framework contains a number of elements. First, more rigorous shareholder discipline, delivered through a new Treasury panel of top private sector analysts and managers. The panel will inject greater private sector expertise into the Treasury's oversight of the Royal Mint, as shareholder. The expertise of the panel will be used to improve and sharpen the incentives on the Royal Mint, with the aim of making its decision taking more transparent, and more commercial.

  Building on this new relationship, we will better define the role of the non-executive directors of the Royal Mint, who, like the directors of private companies, will in future have a clear responsibility to enhance the prosperity of the business over time. We will also bring the number of executives and non-executives on the board into more even balance, in line with best-practice corporate governance.

  Consistent with this process of modernisation, the Royal Mint's financial reporting will be more closely aligned with that of private companies, making it more easily understood by customers, potential partners and analysts.

  These changes will complement a relaxation of the controls which currently restrict the Royal Mint's activities. At present it can only make coins and a narrow range of related products. In future it will be free to exploit its technical skills and assets by offering a wider range of products and by expanding into non-coinage business, where commercially viable. It will also be able to participate in a wider range of ventures with the private sector. With these new freedoms, the Royal Mint will be able to reach its full potential, on its own, or in partnership with private sector firms.
  86
  The updated model of corporate governance, and the private sector expertise it will inject, will help develop the Royal Mint as a business. It will also be vital in securing the best possible use of the new commercial freedoms that will be given to the Royal Mint. I believe the Royal Mint has the skills, the aptitudes and the opportunities to expand into wider markets on its own, and in partnership with commercial companies. In future it will be able to exploit them to the full.

  These fundamental changes will put real business expertise at the heart of the management of the Royal Mint, and will help maximise its value as a business and its contribution to the UK economy, to the benefit of all stakeholders.

  The Royal Mint has a successful track record. It has seen its business grow internationally, making it a world leader we can all be proud of. But the coinage business is increasingly competitive across the world, and we cannot stand still if we want to maintain its position at the forefront in the global marketplace. The package outlined above is an important first step in laying the foundations for the Royal Mint's future prosperity.

  We envisage a process of continuing development and improvement of the Royal Mint, its strategic direction, and its operating framework. We will be looking on a continuing basis at how best to expand and improve the business, and to help it adapt and respond to the challenges ahead.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88483]

  Mr. Rooker
  Officials from my Department regularly attend working groups in Brussels. These working groups comprise: Council working groups; Commission working groups; and Committees involved in matters relating to agriculture and rural development, the majority of which are management committees for common market organisations.

  Statistics are retained for a six monthly period. During the last six months, my Department was represented at some 350 working groups (by some 750 officials in total). A similar number of working groups would have taken place in the previous six months.

  We attach a great deal of importance to UK representation at these groups, which both undertake technical work on EU legislation which will apply in the UK and handle the day-to-day management of markets.

  EU Food and Veterinary Office
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if applicants for(a) professional posts in the European Union Food and Veterinary Office and

  87
  (b) public service posts with the UK Government or its agencies are permitted to canvas in support of their applications. [88299]

  Mr. Rooker
  The procedure for applications for professional posts in the European Union Food and Veterinary Office is a matter for the European Commission. In the UK, all appointments to posts in the Civil Service are legally subject to the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code which is designed to ensure fair and open competition, selection on merit, and equal opportunities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of mail received in the last 12 months for which figures are available from right hon. and hon. Members was replied to by him within,(a) up to 20 days, (b) 21 to 30 days, (c) 31 to 40 days and (d) over 40 days. [90150]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 403–06, which sets out departmental performance against the targets set for answering correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members in the 1998 calendar year.

  The percentage of mail received in the last 12 months from right hon. and hon. Members replied to within the time scales specified could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Raw Milk Processing Plants
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many raw milk processing plants closed in the United Kingdom in the(a) 1970s, (b) 1980s and (c) 1990s. [90954]

  Mr. Rooker
  The 1994 edition of Dairy Facts and Figures, published by the Residuary Milk Marketing Board, indicates net reductions in establishments receiving ex-farm milk of 401 between 1970 and 1980; of Ill between 1980 and 1990; and of 61 between 1990 and 1994. Industry figures indicate a further reduction of 24 between 1994 and 1998.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meetings of the CJCC he has attended. [89274]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 5 July 1999,Official Report, columns 362–63.

  Chocolate Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the nature of Commission objections to the comitology provisions of the chocolate directive. [90397]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 7 July 1999,Official Report, column 552.

  School Milk
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what powers the European Commission is seeking to end school milk subsidies in infant and junior schools in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [90183]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: The European Commission would have to submit a formal proposal to the EC Agriculture Council to amend the Council Regulation concerning the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (Regulation 1255/99 from 1 January 2000). It has not yet done so.

  BSE (USA)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his Department asked the United States Government to comment on the recent reports of the presence of BSE in the USA; to which United States departments these requests were addressed; and on what date the United States departments replied. [90402]

  Mr. Rooker
  On 10 May an official in my Department wrote to the Agricultural Economist at the US Embassy in London drawing attention to allegations in a letter published in Farmers Weekly that there were cases of BSE in the USA. A substantive reply was received by my Department on 17 June drawing on advice supplied to the Embassy by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
Lord Hollenden—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Jet-skis
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are adequate powers to regulate the use of jet-skis so that they do not prejudice the safety of other users of United Kingdom waters; and, if so, what are these powers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government, working with a number of associations, including the Royal Yachting Association, the British Marine Industries Federation and the Royal National Lifeboat Institute, are committed to improving the safety and management of all recreational craft, including jet-skis, through safety education initiatives; a voluntary code of conduct covering best practice; and a voluntary safety and identification scheme. Several local authorities have already addressed the problems caused by jet-skis by better managing their waters through segregation of activities. In the longer term, the Government aim to pursue primary legislation to enable local authorities to have better control through by-laws of their coastal waters.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I should admit that I developed an invincible repugnance for these machines following
2
the Commonwealth Law Conference in 1986 in Jamaica. I thought no more about it until I read, as no doubt did your Lordships, a report of a fatal accident that occurred last month in Dubai Creek. The report contained a heading, "Menace beyond English law". That is why I thought I should raise the question with your Lordships. Is it not the case that there are no national laws circumscribing the use of these machines which can have engines as large as 1,800 c.c. and reach speeds as fast as 65 miles an hour? They have, I understand, caused considerable trouble on the North Wales coast. Why have we taken so long to start thinking about doing something about these highly dangerous machines?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, regrettably neither my powers nor my duties extend to the coastal waters of either Jamaica or Dubai. However, so far as concerns British waters, the noble and learned Lord is correct. There is no national legislation. The matter has some legal complexities. We established a working party which engaged in consultation. That was completed in October last year. The working party's recommendations have been accepted broadly by Ministers. We shall be looking to national legislation to enable local authorities more easily to introduce by-laws. However, we should see the matter in context. Out of 11,500 total coastal incidents reported, only 1.2 per cent—137—resulted from jet-ski incidents. Although I agree with the noble and learned Lord that there is a problem, it needs to be seen in proportion.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, last year I observed two of these contraptions being used without authority—indeed, probably unlawfully—to drive away swans and other water fowl from a lake, which was created at great public cost. Is it not reasonable to suggest that, in addition to safety, regulations should also ensure that a greater degree of responsibility is exhibited by those who want to practise this sport?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that regulations relating to the disturbance of wildlife may have been

3
appropriate in those particular circumstances. The working party recommended that we looked at enabling local authorities and other authorities to introduce by-laws to control the use of these contraptions. At present, very few of them are registered.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, will the Minister join his honourable friend, Glenda Jackson, in commending the publication, Managing personal watercraft, produced by, among others, the British Marine Industries Federation, the Royal Yachting Association, Gwynedd County Council and the Poole Harbour Commissioners—in other words, all sides of the industry, as it were? Will the Minister encourage other local authorities to use the powers that they already have, including access to slipways, introducing speed limits within a certain distance of the beach and so on? While new powers may be necessary, does the Minister agree that existing powers can already be used?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the publication to which the noble Lord refers was aimed at bringing together the voluntary bodies and the local authorities concerned. It provides good, clear guidelines as to how and how not to use these machines. Some limited powers are available to local authorities; however, those powers are constrained by being non-specific. Most of the powers relating to waterways refer to "boats" or "vessels". There is legal precedent for saying that jet-skis are not boats. That is an additional complication that would have to be addressed.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, perhaps I may draw one further complication to the Minister's attention of which he may not be aware. There is no specific legal framework to regulate what happens on estuaries, which in our maritime law, as I understand it, are considered a branch of the ocean and are thus, in principle, open to all navigation. Can local authorities be given some power to control what happens on estuaries?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is a somewhat wider point—how far the laws of the sea apply in relation to estuaries and how far coastal regulations should apply. It is unlikely that these particular machines would stray very far from coastal waters; therefore, if additional powers were given, they would probably be covered by either inland or coastal waters regulations.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord said that very few of these potentially lethal craft are registered. Does that mean that any laws or by-laws that are either in existence or may be introduced do not apply to them?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. The question of registration and the question of use are separate, although enforcement would obviously be easier were there a system of registration. Jet-skis are only part of the problem. There is no mandatory registration of any small craft. There are over 2 million such craft, about
4
5 per cent of which are registered under a voluntary scheme. Jet-skis are no different in that respect from other small vessels.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many jet-ski incidents have been fatal?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, there have been two fatal accidents, one at sea and one inland.

East Timor
2.46 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they believe the United Nations Security Council should take to assist the peaceful implementation of the popular consultation in East Timor on 8th August under secure, intimidation-free conditions.
The Parliamentary Under-secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have been at the forefront of UN work on East Timor. At the United Nations Security Council, we piloted two resolutions in support of the UN supervised consultation (Nos. 1236 and 1246). Those resolutions take note of recent violence in East Timor and commit the Indonesian Government to maintaining peace and security in the territory. The consultation date has now slipped by two weeks because of the security situation. The Secretary-General is keeping the situation under review.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the Government for all that they have done to secure peaceful consultation. However, have they noted the letter from the Secretary-General to the Security Council postponing registration until Friday, so as to give time for what he describes as concrete steps to secure the conditions for a free and fair election? Has the Minister also noted that today, General Wiranto, the armed forces commander, is in Dili, accompanied by the Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, and former armed forces commander, Feisal Tanjung? Presumably they are there to ensure that the local armed forces commander, Tono Suratman, calls the militias off and makes it possible for peaceful consultation to be held. Are there any further steps that we can take to persuade the Indonesian authorities that they should seize this last chance?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government have noted those activities. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, is due to decide by Friday whether it is safe enough for voter registration to go ahead on the somewhat delayed timetable that I indicated is now necessary because of the security situation. As the noble Lord says, not only Mr Alatas but at least 15 Ministers from the Indonesian Cabinet are making a one-day visit today to East Timor. They are talking to local leaders and to United Nations

5
people on the ground in an attempt to establish exactly what is happening. We very much welcome that visit. We believe that it is an indication of good intentions and an earnest of what they are hoping to do to calm the situation in order to allow the consultative process to go ahead. We shall, of course, be keeping a firm eye on the situation. My honourable friend Mr Hoon was in Washington and New York only last week discussing this matter.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, pursuant to the previous question, what efforts have been made to address the problem of the tens of thousands of displaced people in East Timor—estimated to be at least 60,000—which clearly poses a serious obstacle to registration for next month's vote and is creating a serious humanitarian problem? Do the Government believe that in those circumstances it is realistic to hold free and fair elections in August?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are very concerned about the large number of IDPs in East Timor. This is a matter that the United Nations mission on the ground is tackling. We have given support to UNAMET which is headed by a British UN official, Mr Ian Martin. We have contributed 1 million dollars to the UN trust fund for East Timor. The EU has contributed 7 million dollars to that fund. We are doing what we can to support the authorities on the ground; particularly the United Nations which is responsible for IDPs in that area.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that only yesterday the Prime Minister of Portugal, Mr António Guterres, said he believed that the conditions for the proper conduct of a referendum did not currently exist. Can the Minister say what evidence she has that the Government of Indonesia are making a real attempt to control the armed militia who have attacked not only members of the East Timor Independence Movement but, more recently, members of the UNAMET mission itself? Can the Minister give any assurance that the Indonesian Government are aware of the seriousness of allowing these militia to continue such action?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that we can because the evidence is that half the Indonesian cabinet has gone to East Timor only today. That has been a very swift reaction. A number of attacks by paramilitaries, three of which have taken place in the past few weeks, have caused a good deal of anxiety. My honourable friend Mr Hoon has called in the Indonesian Ambassador and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has written to the Indonesian Government. Last week Mr Hoon was in Washington and New York to discuss these matters. The Foreign Minister, Mr Alatas, who heads the team that has gone to East Timor, said today that everybody agrees that the security situation is continually improving and that preparations for the ballot have been going well. I believe that the Indonesian Government are doing what they can. A number of Ministers are in
6
East Timor. We must not take things for granted but must monitor the situation closely, as we are, both bilaterally and through the United Nations.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Indonesian Government may be doing all they can, but does not responsibility for the violence and intimidation, and condoning it, rest on the shoulders of the army commanders, Tono Suratman and General Adam Damiri? Is not the best thing that the high-level delegation can do to restore the confidence of the people of East Timor to dismiss the commanders under whom this reign of terror has occurred?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, very often in some countries there is not necessarily the synergy between the military and political that we have come to expect. This is a matter for the Indonesian authorities who lead their armed forces. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to your Lordships today that not only is the United Nations on the ground taking these matters very seriously but the fact that half the cabinet has gone to East Timor today to hold discussions with the UN and local civilian leaders demonstrates the urgency with which that Government are addressing the issue.

European Union/US Banana Dispute
2.53 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in their attempt to resolve the dispute between the European Union and the United States Government in the banana war.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, in response to pressure from the UK and other member states, the European Commission came forward with a paper on 26th May reporting the results of initial discussions with the US and other parties in setting out a range of options for revising the EU's banana regime. The Council of Ministers has encouraged the European Commission to continue its discussions with the US and other parties and to submit formal proposals on the adaptation of the arrangements for bananas as soon as possible. The UK has made it clear that it is open-minded on options, provided the solution is clearly WTO-compatible, ends the dispute conclusively and provides suitable support for the Caribbean.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply and welcoming the steps that have been taken so far as they have achieved anything, may I remind him that our export trade is still suffering very severely? I give the example of carton manufacturing in my old constituency of Huntingdonshire where the threat of unemployment is now serious. Will the Government press this matter to a satisfactory conclusion?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as the noble Lord has rightly outlined, carton manufacturing is one

7
of those areas where retaliation has been taken by the United States to the value of £1.4 million in turnover out of a total of £27 million. We are doing everything in our power to hasten the European Union's negotiation so that it reaches a successful conclusion.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the principal difficulties is that in general US congressmen have little idea of the consequences of United States actions? Can the UK assist in strengthening the ACP secretariat in Brussels, for example, to allow it to play a more effective role in this regard?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I do not believe that the negotiating process is lacking. In the European Union and in individual member states we have sufficient capacity and know-how to conclude a successful negotiation. I do not believe that extra bureaucracy will help at this time. I agree that on occasions the American process of lobbying between company and government is much more strident than our own, but, as in the case of "hushkits", sensible compromises can be found, and I believe that one will be found in this case as well.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the European Commission is in the process of reorganisation. Whether or not it is yet finalised, one does not know; but can the Minister give any indication of whether the Government have yet been informed which of the new commissioners, if approved, will deal with this matter? Can he identify, in order that we may trace the matter thoroughly, which directorates-general are likely to be involved in the negotiations in their final form?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as far as we understand it, the Commissioner for Trade Relations who will take over from our own commissioner will be Pascal Lamy, the French nomination. He is widely experienced in trade negotiations through his current role at Crédit Lyonnais. I do not believe that we can yet provide details about individual directorates-general. One of the first utterances of Professor Prodi was that it would be a lot easier for people generally if directorates were given titles that described what they did rather than a number of numbers, if I may put it that way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, we were told initially that the cashmere industry was just as badly affected. We now read in the press that the Americans have reversed their position on that industry. Was that simply because they liked cashmere, or was a very clever technique employed from which we can learn, and which we can perhaps apply, in the trade war?
Lord Simon of Highbury: I do not believe that it was due to anything particularly clever other than consistently sound negotiating by our side in bringing to the attention of the Americans the fact that this particular trade is seasonal and that once we had gone
8
through the seasonal peak, which we were doing at the time of the dispute, that particular problem would be resolved and they would gain nothing.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, on the assumption that the hearings before the European Parliament on the new Commission will be completed by September, can my noble friend indicate when he believes it is likely that specific proposals will be forthcoming from the Commission to deal with this very protracted issue? Perhaps I should declare an interest because of my involvement in this matter until last July.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as I said in my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we hope to have formal recommendations soon. I think that the soonest date would be late September as and when the new Commission has gone through the process of parliamentary approval. However, as we can present proposals before that, I think that late September would be a good date.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever the outcome of the negotiations, it is inevitable that there will be a serious problem for a number of Caribbean islands? Will he confirm that the Government will be at the forefront in putting together the appropriate package of guarantees, soft loans and grants to enable those islands to make the natural transition from bananas to other products?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is uppermost in the Government's mind that the regime which substitutes the existing illegal regime, as found by the WTO, will have to span one of three options: tariff, licence or quota. I think it most likely that tariffs will be used. Uppermost in our minds in the negotiations will be the fact that we shall have to make good some income to our fellow citizens who are deeply affected by the banana trade.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the World Trade Organisation criticised the agreement which led to the banana war as long ago as 12th April, why do we have to wait until September until the matter is satisfactorily resolved? Will the Minister bear in mind that much damage could be done to our export industry meanwhile?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as we have often said, that is the nature of complex international trade negotiations when upwards of 20 or 30 people want to see a successful outcome. We are taking very seriously the impact on our own industries. The Department of Trade and Industry has had several discussions with people who are affected by the first stages of the retaliation about which we speak.

Bett Committee Report: Academic Salaries
3.2 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the Bett Committee report which has recommended substantial pay increases for academic and academic-related staff in United Kingdom universities.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the independent review of higher education pay and conditions, the Bett Committee, was established by, and reported to, the higher education employers. It will be for them to respond to its recommendations.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the noble Baroness accept that over the past few years the salaries of this group of staff in universities have fallen by some 30 per cent in real terms compared with those of other professional groups? Does she agree that in order to recruit and retain high quality staff it is crucial to the future of the higher education sector that remuneration should be adequate? Would she care to comment upon the effect of professional interrelationships which may have resulted from the recent decision of the Wellcome Trust to give a 30 per cent salary increase to research scientific staff working in the universities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the figures cited by the noble Lord are not those that I have been given. The new earnings survey data show that between 1981 and 1998 university teachers' pay grew by about 18 per cent in real terms. I accept that compared with comparable groups the figure does not indicate a very satisfactory position for university teachers. Over the same period, the pay of a comparable group of non-manual workers rose by about 46 per cent.
It is important that remuneration should be adequate for any group. The Wellcome Trust made a decision to give its very senior research fellows a large pay increase. That is a matter for the trust. However, I must reiterate what I said in my initial reply. It is a matter for the employers, the universities, to decide what they pay their academic staff, and indeed the other staff who work in universities.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that something must be done as regards academic staff pay? The staff have been vilely treated over the past 20 years. It is more important that any action should be undertaken quickly. If the Government have plans for another vast expansion of higher education, they cannot be carried out unless staff are reasonably remunerated. Even then, it is questionable whether those plans should be carried out.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the position of university staff. I should correct what
10
the noble Lord said about plans for a vast expansion of undergraduate degree level and postgraduate courses. The Government have not made any decisions about that. The Bett Committee recognised that there was no funding in the CSR for substantial increases. When we consider the next CSR it will be a matter for further discussion on whether such funding should be made specifically available.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was bemused by the Minister's last answer. I understood that the Government intended firmly to expand yet further access to higher education. What are the Government going to do? Recommendation No. 50 of the Dearing Committee was that there should be an independent review. That independent review has now taken place. Will the Government respond to the Bett Report? Will they set up a separate review? Alternatively, will they do nothing?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Dearing Committee recommended that there should be an independent review. That independent review has now taken place. It was clear that the Dearing Committee intended that it should be a review set up by and reporting to the employers. That is exactly what has happened. There is no case for the Government to interfere in and to respond to the Bett Committee at this point in time.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is not additional government funding required in order to implement the recommendations of the Bett Report? They seek to put right the neglect of the past 20 years in relation to university pay and conditions. In the light of the contribution that our universities make to competitiveness within the UK economy and through investment by overseas students, does the noble Baroness agree that it is essential that the staff are paid adequately in order to maintain the high standards of British universities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for commenting on the valuable work that is being done in universities. I agree that the economic contribution of our universities is considerable. However, we invested an extra £168 million in universities when we first came to power and a further £776 million in the CSR.
I have said—I say it again to my noble friend—that we shall consider the issue but I cannot anticipate the provision of the next CSR when the work on the many competing claims on it has not yet begun.

Petition: Immigration and Asylum Bill
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I beg to present a petition from Mrs Ann Dean of Brighton on behalf of those seeking humanity and justice for refugees, which prays that this House will amend the Immigration and Asylum Bill as suggested by roughly 100 organisations and a few individuals who gave evidence to the House

11
of Commons Standing Committee on the Bill, and especially to note the suggestions of Mr N J P Bond, who met genuine torture victims who were deported, so that the procedures are truly fairer and faster, but only harsher to fraudulent claimants and to those who neglect their duty to act justly, efficiently and with humanity to all refugees, so that United Kingdom citizens like Mr Bond, as well as refugees, do not suffer stress from this injustice.
Petition presented.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause insert the following new clause—

Immigration and Asylum Bill

  AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION RULES
  (" . Amendments to Immigration Rules under the 1971 Act shall be subject to an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.").
  The noble Baroness said: In a long parliamentary career, I have learnt that, although Executives from all parties almost invariably resent the intervention of Parliament in the matters that they put before it, that oversight and that scrutiny are vital in producing the best possible legislation.
  This is a long and complex Bill that directly affects people's human rights and the reputation of this country as an outstanding model of the democratic treatment of individuals from wherever they may come and of respect for civil liberties. Therefore, it behoves us all to give the most careful scrutiny possible to the legislation that we are considering today and will consider in the next few days in Committee.
  It is crucial to recognise how much the Bill's impact will depend upon the detail of orders and regulations, and even the practice of immigration officers, that is not laid down in the Bill. A feature of the Bill—which does not incur some of the problems that afflicted earlier legislation when very few provisions appeared as primary legislation—is that the Secretary of State has wide and sweeping powers to issue orders and to make regulations of a kind that the House will not be able to supervise directly. In light of the phrase, "The devil is in the detail", we urge careful consideration of those powers of regulation and of the powers to make orders.
  A second area of the Bill is more important even than the issues of asylum and the treatment of refugees. The Bill represents a crucial early test of the commitment of
  12
  Parliament—and, indeed, of the Government—to upholding the European Convention on Human Rights and to incorporating human rights into British law. How we handle the Bill and how we deal with potential conflicts with the European convention and with other international conventions to which this country has put its name, such as the refugee convention, will form an important precedent for legislation on many subjects that will follow over many years.
  Therefore, we believe that it is crucial to show that the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and those concerned with the refugee convention and other similar conventions are respected, honoured and upheld in the Bill. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has produced a report for which many of us are extremely grateful. That clear and powerful report is the culmination of difficult and detailed work, and it points out that delegated powers can be exercised in ways that are not compatible with convention rights or with the refugee convention.
  As many noble Lords will know, much doubt and concern were expressed in another place about this aspect of the Bill. As a consequence, many amendments were put down, insisting that the affirmative resolution procedure was the proper way to deal with many of the regulations and orders made under the Bill. I am delighted to say this afternoon that the Government seem to have considered those amendments and those arguments very carefully.
  Nevertheless, a good deal in this Bill will rely upon the immigration rules, which are extremely detailed and extremely long. They provide considerable guidance to immigration officers and others in the pursuit of their duties by suggesting how they should handle claims from asylum seekers and refugees. The rules also refer to persons who are to be removed and deported, to arguments about detention and so on. As those rules are so important, we believe that they should be subject to affirmative resolution. I will give a few examples of how the immigration rules will affect the consideration that we can give to this Bill and how they affected the consideration that it received in another place.
  It is worth mentioning that, when similar legislation was considered in 1993 and 1996, draft immigration rules were laid before Parliament at the same time as the primary legislation. In other words, it was recognised that the immigration rules were an integral part of the way in which we deal with the difficult issues surrounding asylum seekers and refugees. We do not have draft immigration rules before us today, and it is not altogether easy to get hold of those very long immigration rules—I know, because I have tried to do so. I believe that it would be helpful if those draft immigration rules, or at least rules that could be changed, could be laid before Parliament. That would make our debates both more effective and more serious.
  I will give a few examples of the way in which the immigration rules bite on the issues that we are considering in this legislation. The first issue concerns Clause 10, which refers to the right to send people to third countries that are regarded as safe. The relevant immigration rule, No. 345, is not on the face of the Bill

  13
  but it raises some extremely important issues of principle. If someone is to be sent to a third country that is deemed safe on the grounds that he is not a national or citizen of that country and that his right to life, liberty and certain kinds of freedom and so on will be respected, one might expect that, at the very least, the Home Office would be responsible for ensuring that that person will be received in that country and not sent into limbo. Immigration rule No. 345 states:
  "Provided that he is satisfied that a case meets these criteria"—
  that is, a case for sending someone to a third country—
  "the Secretary of State is under no obligation to consult the authorities of the third country or territory before the removal of an asylum applicant to that country or territory".
  The fact that we have no idea whether a third country will receive the person who is sent on is of sufficient moment to justify discussing the matter in Parliament and in your Lordships' House. It is part of the immigration rules, but we cannot discuss them at present.
  Clause 12 refers to the security measures needed to enable someone to visit this country. Those criteria will be laid down not in Committee or in primary legislation but in the immigration rules. Clause 20 provides a third example. It refers to how far "sham marriages"—as they are called—may be entered into in order to avoid immigration rules. However, we cannot discuss that issue seriously in detail unless we know what the immigration rules to be avoided say.
  For those reasons, I ask the Minister—we have not yet put down an amendment to this effect—whether the immigration rules can be laid before the Committee and whether the Committee will be able to make suggestions for changing those rules that ride alongside the primary legislation. But more importantly, it is why we seek to ensure that the immigration rules themselves should be subject to affirmative order.
  I hope that I have shown that, at least in some instances deeply affecting the passage of the Bill, the immigration rules are as relevant as anything on the face of the Bill itself. However, they must be considered alongside the Bill. If we do not do so, we may find, as was indicated by the Justice report, that secondary legislation and the immigration rules themselves might contradict our commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights and under the refugee convention. For that reason, we need to be able to discuss in more detail changes to the immigration rules that could profoundly affect the civil liberties, rights and standing of those who are seeking asylum or refugee status in this country. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Baroness has raised a number of extremely pertinent issues which touch the very rights of vulnerable people and about which I believe greater clarity is required. The views expressed by the noble Baroness have also been put cogently by Justice in a document which is supported by a well-known silk and others, including UNHCR. Therefore, this matter will demand the most careful consideration and analysis by my noble friend.
  14
  That the Government are concerned about these issues has been demonstrated by some concessions that have already been discussed in another place. I believe that we can derive encouragement from that. Furthermore, I am confident that my noble friend will respond to these concerns in his usual constructive way.
  I should just like to say by way of preface—but that does not mean that I shall speak at any great length: but all speeches demand a preface and, preferably, a swift conclusion, and this speech shall be one of those—that a large number of matters will be dealt with by way of secondary legislation, and presumably by way of negative resolution. I do not know whether it will be possible to segregate issues of significant importance or whether they will all need to be dealt with by affirmative resolution. No doubt that is a matter on which we shall hear from my noble friend in a few minutes. However, wherever there is a doubt, I hope that the benefit of that doubt will be resolved in favour of the affirmative resolution procedure. The procedure is not much more cumbersome, but I believe that it provides a greater security that matters will be that much mare carefully considered than if we proceed by way of negative resolution.
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, in the main these are issues which touch upon the civil liberties of so many people. When Justice made its submission, it stated in paragraph 2.4 of its document dealing with the human rights compliance statement:
  "We consider that the limits of order-making powers should be more precisely defined in statute, to alert those making or amending orders or regulations to human rights compliance issues".
  Overwhelmingly, that is right. Justice continued:
  "We also consider that secondary legislation with a human rights impact should be certified and should require affirmative resolution of Parliament".
  The first part is likely to be dealt with, but at present it is the second part that concerns me. For that reason, I believe that the noble Baroness has done the Committee a service by raising the matter.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: From this Bench we must admit that, being working Bishops rather than working Peers, no single Bishop will necessarily be able to be present throughout the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. There is a sense of a baton being handed on from one to another. The Second Reading speech was given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and it may well be that later in the proceedings on the Bill other right reverend Prelates will also play a part. However, I believe that we shall speak with one voice, though embodied in different people.
  As one who was present for both the 1993 and the 1996 Bills, there is a curious sense of returning to a familiar scene. The faces that I see on the Liberal Democrat Benches are those that I remember from three years ago. The Government's policies are apparently unchanged and are based upon the idea that all asylum seekers, or at least the majority of them, must be kept at bay rather than given proper access to the justice which they deserve in this country. All that has happened is that the administration has changed.

  15
  In 1996 I debated the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who is a Scottish mathematician. For the Bill before us, I and others will be debating with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is a Welsh lawyer for whom I and many in your Lordships' House have the highest regard. Although I may take issue with him on various matters, I know that my respect for him will only be increased by his handling of the Bill.
  I await with interest to see what will be the attitude of noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench. I am confident that they will feel compelled by moral obligation rather than bow to political expediency.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am obliged to the right reverend Prelate for giving way. He will know that I took an active part in the proceedings on the Bill introduced by what is now the Opposition. I believe I am right to say that the response made by the Government in another place has been altogether different in character and principle from that of the then government dealing with that Bill. The Government have made a number of concessions.
  While, as I have already indicated, I am still actively critical of some of the provisions of the Bill, is it not a little unfair to castigate the Government in quite the same way as the other administration which deserved castigation?
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I accept the rebuke of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. However, I would make the point that, in broad terms, the Bill before us is seen as one which creates difficulties in very much the same way as previous Bills. We shall wait to see whether at the end of the day the Government produce a Bill which genuinely allows asylum seekers proper access to justice.
  The point being made in this amendment, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is one that deserves our attention. Clearly, the Government's intention is to reduce the backlog of determinations. That intent is shared with the previous administration. Some of us are not yet convinced that what we have seen will enable that to happen. Nevertheless, the ideal is a short period of determination. Of course there are those who abuse the system. The way to sort out abusers is to put them through the determination process, which will sort out those applications that are genuine and those that are not.
  If we are to have a much shorter backlog, it is enormously important that the determination process is operated, and is seen to be operated, with absolute fairness. For that reason, it is right that this new clause should be accepted. It provides a degree of protection and it will mean that both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity not only to scrutinise primary legislation, but also to scrutinise with great care the way it is carried into operation through secondary legislation. I would just affirm again the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that the successful
  16
  operation of the Bill will lie in the detail and in the way in which it is operated. For that reason, I believe that the amendment requires very careful consideration.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Renton: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It is grouped with the amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Cope and Lord Astor which appears after Clause 154. I suggest that that is a better place for such a provision. Amendment No. 1 relates to statutory instruments and it is incongruous to have the provision at the beginning of the Bill. However, Clause 154 deals with regulations and orders, so surely the provision would be better placed as a subsection of Clause 154.
  Amendment No. 210 has the same effect as Amendment No. 1 and I do not think that one could take exception to the drafting of either of them, but I suggest that one or other should be placed as a subsection of Clause 154.
  Earl Russell: I, too, want to draw the attention of the Committee to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which touches precisely on the subject of the amendment. In paragraph 7, the committee states:
  "We do not suggest that the Immigration Rules should be included on the face of the bill. But we do consider that the time has come when the House may wish to consider amending the 1971 Act through an amendment to the present bill to provide that the Immigration Rules, which are of immense importance to asylum seekers, should be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure".
  In paragraph 39, the committee states:
  "Related to this is our concern about the arrangements for parliamentary control over the making of Immigration Rules. This has led us to recommend that the House should consider amending the bill to make immigration rules subject to affirmative procedure".
  That is a strong and positive recommendation from a committee which has generally commanded the confidence of this House—and deservedly so. I shall touch on one more reason why that is the case. The immigration rules are the point at which our international obligations, which I am sure all governments wish to take seriously, bite upon the immigration procedure. That is through Section 2 of the 1993 Act, which was passed under the "Home Secretaryship" of Mr Kenneth Clarke, which seems to me to be a case of distance lending enchantment to the view.
  That Act provides that the immigration rules may not contain anything contrary to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. That is a vitally important provision, the interpretation of which may occasionally give rise to dispute, as I am sure that the right reverend Prelate, to whom I listened with great pleasure, was well aware. It is also a great pleasure to me, too, to have him again opposite me in body only but united in spirit. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
  Lord Avebury: The instructions to immigration officers, which are equally important, have a bearing on the decisions made by those officers, notwithstanding

  17
  the fact that they do not form part of the rules. There are two sets of instructions to immigration officers; one which is published and which is available on the Home Office website, and the other which is secret and which perhaps embodies the suspicions of the Home Office which it believes are not fit to be disclosed to an applicant in case avoiding action should be taken. However, the instructions may be vital in determining whether an application is accepted.
  I wish to draw particular attention to the cases of family members who do not fall within the degrees of consanguinity permitted by the immigration rules. Those rules have been tightened over the years and are extremely restrictive on all near-relatives except spouses and minor children. The result can be seen in one case which recently came to my attention. It involves an Assyrian Christian who came here accompanied by his wife and two children. Unfortunately, he transited via Oslo and was about to be sent back there by the Home Office because that was his country of first asylum. That was notwithstanding the fact that his wife had two sisters resident in the United Kingdom; that there is an Assyrian church in London; and that there is an Assyrian library and culture infrastructure here which is totally non-existent in Norway. Because the relatives were no more close than the sister, the rule which determines the country of first asylum came into play and the Home Office was going to send the family to Norway, where they had no support.
  Fortunately, the family applied for judicial review and during the time it took for the case to come to court the period which is permitted under the Dublin Convention lapsed, and the Norwegians refused to accept the family. So they finished up here anyway. However, the story illustrates the lengths to which one must go to arrive at the commonsense solution that a family with close relatives and many support mechanisms here did not qualify under the rules.
  I give another example; that of an Algerian refugee who was undoubtedly well qualified and had no difficulty in obtaining asylum. He was a former professor and had been tortured. He was granted refugee status fairly promptly. That is most unusual, in my experience, because even the best cases may take five or six years. When he left Algeria in a hurry with his wife and five children, the eldest of the family, who was 18, was taking examinations and did not accompany the rest of the family. The Home Office now says that that one child is unable to enter the United Kingdom because he falls to be dealt with under the provisions which demand a separate asylum application for any member of the family who has reached the age of 18.
  That illustrates the importance of examining the rules at the same time as examining the Bill. The rules contain many restrictive provisions which violate the principle of family unity and may transgress the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has signed a certificate.
  I warmly support my noble friend's plea that the Bill should provide that all amendments to the immigration rules are dealt with by the affirmative resolution
  18
  procedure. I believe that while we are debating the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, should lay before the House a copy of the instructions to immigration officers so that we can consider them at the same time.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not sure where an English accountant fits into the hierarchy set out by the right revered Prelate, but wherever it is, here I am! I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, my former colleague—I nearly said "former friend" but I hope that he remains so—down the road of comparing different governments. The problems which surround immigration and asylum remain real and the dilemmas which faced the previous government continue to face this Government and have led to this Bill and the issues which surround it.
  I support Amendment No. 1. We, too, saw the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and its important recommendation. That and other representations led us to table Amendment No. 210. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, we chose to place it after Clause 154, towards the end of the Bill, rather than at the beginning. With all due respect to my noble friend, that is a secondary point, but the wording is to all intents and purposes identical.
  The time has come to give serious consideration to ensuring that any future amendments to the immigration rules come before both Houses of Parliament for the affirmative procedure. It would also be helpful if the proposed changes to the immigration rules were made available to us in good time for our considerations on Report, which will presumably follow after the Recess. That was done for previous Bills a year or two ago.
  The case for such scrutiny of changes to the immigration rules rests on the importance of those rules. That case has been well made by others during the debate and I do not need to emphasise the point. The issue also reflects a larger problem facing Parliament: the increasing volume of secondary legislation that is incorporated into all Bills. This is not a party point. Many recent Bills have required a great deal of secondary legislation. The trend is probably increasing, although there was already a heavy volume—getting ever heavier—under the previous government.
  We all regret the complexity of modern law, but there is an inevitability about it. Given that complexity and the number of measures requiring secondary legislation, our procedures need to be looked at again. That is a wider point of which the amendment is an example. The immigration rules are of sufficient importance to warrant the affirmative procedure when they are changed. I support the amendment.
  Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, will he make it clear how he feels about the placing of the amendment or one like it? He wisely placed it after Clause 154, which deals with regulations and orders. It would be incongruous for it to be the first clause of the

  19
  Bill. Will he stick to his original view that it should go after Clause 154—or, indeed, could be a subsection of it?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have not changed my mind. That is a more sensible place for the clause. I shall wait until I have heard further discussion of the issue to decide whether it should be a subsection of Clause 154 or a separate clause. I would be content to leave that to the parliamentary draftsmen. My noble friend has given a lot of sound advice to parliamentary draftsmen over many years, particularly in his report. I shall not quarrel with him about matters of parliamentary drafting.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Dholakia: I support the amendment. We value the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, particularly when we agree with him. In this case, he is right. We are not bothered where the amendment appears in the Bill as long as the Government intend to include it. It precedes the other amendments because it is right and proper to draw attention to an aspect of the Bill on which we feel that discussion could be stifled to an extent because of a lack of information, particularly on rules and regulations.
  At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and I drew attention to the problems that the Bill created. We identified clause after clause that provided that the Secretary of State may "make regulations" or,
  "may, by order, make further provision",
  or do so in,
  "such circumstances as may be specified".
  The problem has been ably identified by many noble Lords.
  The amendment received the support of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which took into account my comments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. It is important for us to be able to identify aspects of the Bill that breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
  We have a clear statement from the Minister in the Bill. However, we do not know whether the rules to be made under delegated legislation will breach the convention. That can be determined only when the matter comes before your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby and I have tabled several clause-stand-part Motions rather than amendments because that gives us an opportunity to highlight the potential breaches of the convention.
  There is a fundamental problem. Some years ago my noble friend Lord Avebury asked for not just the immigration rules but the instructions to immigration officers to be laid before Parliament. We were surprised to discover that they were confidential documents. It is not just the rules that are important, but the way in which immigration officers implement them. We hope to have some sight of that document.
  20
  I support the amendment for the reasons that I have stated. It has been supported by all those who have spoken so far. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has always been helpful. I remind him that on Second Reading he said,
  "if there are improvements to be made, I am perfectly happy to look at them with an open mind. Some points strike me as being extremely powerfully made. I shall want to consider them with some care".—[Official Report, 29/6/99; col. 249.]
  Many speakers have supported the main thrust of the Bill. We seek the support of the Government. I hope that the Minister accepts the amendment.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The intention of both amendments is the same. They would make any change to the immigration rules under the Immigration Act 1971 subject to the affirmative procedure. I understand the reasoning, but I think that the concerns are misplaced.
  Immigration rules are statements of the practice to be followed in the administration of immigration legislation. By virtue of Section 3(2) of the 1971 Act, they are made by the Secretary of State subject to a special form of negative procedure. He is required to lay a statement of the changes to the rules before Parliament.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked about the opportunity for either House to pray against changes made under Section 3(2) of the 1971 Act. If the Secretary of State wishes to make a change, he is obliged to lay before Parliament a statement of the changes in the rules. If the statement is disapproved by resolution of either House within 40 days of being laid, the Secretary of State is obliged to make such changes or further changes as appear to him to be required and such further statement must be laid before Parliament within 40 days of the date of the resolution.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is quite right. Those questions need continuing thought and, as I said to your Lordships on Second Reading, I am perfectly happy to look at those matters between now and Report stage.
  I should say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that it is unlikely that the new rules will be available before Report. The nature of the rules will depend in sensible part on the final shape of the Bill. We want wide consultation outside the Chamber with all interested parties. I cannot think that the appropriate consultation will be complete in the time specified by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
  Lord Avebury: When the Minister says that the new rules will not be available before Report, is he implying that consolidated rules will be published at that time and not simply a statement of the changes?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot give an answer about what the final shape of the new rules will be. That would be offensive to this Committee. We shall want to see the final shape of the Bill. Plainly, at the moment, we are scrutinising the rules, and I hope that that is of benefit not only to the noble Lord in his helpful intervention but also to other Members of the Committee who have spoken. We are currently

  21
  scrutinising the rules, carrying out an audit of many of the aspects which trouble the Committee; namely, ECHR compliance. As the noble Lord said, I have certified all that I can certify at present, which is that I believe in the convention compliance of the Bill. I am not in a position to give a view on any final forms of rules. In the nature of things, we do not have them. I hope that it is helpful to the Committee to understand that the scrutiny is presently continuing.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: We fully accept that the draft immigration rules will have to be drawn up at the end of the procedures which turn the Bill into an Act. But would it be possible for the draft immigration rules to be laid before this House before we complete the Report stage so that we can consider them and perhaps the noble Lord can consider our comments on them?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, that is a perfectly reasonable request. I shall take advice on it. Irrespective of the outcome, the noble Baroness has raised a helpful point.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I suggested that the draft immigration rules, rather than the final ones, may be available. From recollection, I believe that that is what happened on previous occasions in 1993 and 1996 when Parliament was considering the relevant legislation.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his correction. I may have misheard him. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis made an extremely important point to which I wish to revert in a moment. These immigration rules are rules of practice and in some areas, they deal with extremely detailed matters such as the length of leave which is normally given to visitors in particular categories. In part, they are guidance for those who must administer the legislation. The Secretary of State and others retain discretion to act outside the rules in exceptional cases. So I emphasise that one is dealing here with extremely detailed matters indeed. Only a small proportion of the rules deals with asylum claims and some of that is arguably simply explanatory of requirements set out elsewhere.
  The rules and the arrangements for their making have worked perfectly well. I repeat that if a Member of this House or another place is concerned about the draft rule changes, he has an opportunity to secure a debate and a vote on their approval. However, where there are no such concerns, there is no need for a debate and one need not take place.
  Perhaps I may deal with the point expressed most graphically by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He asked whether or not we should segregate different issues. That is what Clause 154 is intended to achieve. Clause 154(1) states:
  "Any power to make rules, regulations or orders conferred by this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument".
  Clause 154(2) states:
  "Any such statutory instrument may—

  (a) contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the person making ii considers appropriate;

  22

  (b) make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case; and

  (c) make different provision for different areas".

  One then comes to my noble friend's segregation point because in subsection (3) one sees that:
  "No order is to be made under",
  various relevant sections, which I do not read out,
  "unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House".
  The clause continues:
  "(4) No regulations are to be made…unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
  (5) Any statutory instrument…shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament".
  Therefore, the segregation of issues point, which I repeat is a good one, raised by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is reflected in Clause 154. Whether it is fully reflected is another question. But I believe that my noble friend's theme has already been taken on board.
  One or two questions were raised about the publication of instructions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised that question. We published the instructions. We made them available on the website as a proactive step of our own. Some parts of the instructions are not available for good reasons: because availability would prejudice the control. But only a minority is withheld where there is a real operational risk.
  The noble Baroness said that it is sometimes difficult to find the current rules. I sympathise with her. They were published by HMSO as HC395 of 1994 and they should be reasonably widely available.
  As regards the certificate which I put on the face of the Bill, when the Act comes into force on 2nd October of next year, on my recollection, the immigration rules will be susceptible to challenge on the basis that they contravene the convention rights.
  I return to the working of the rules in the past. I suggest to the Committee that this seems a sensible approach. It ensures that the time of this House or another place is not taken up with debates on straightforward or non-controversial matters. Quite often, there are small, sometimes technical, changes to the rules which are widely accepted, need no further explanation and, indeed, seem to call for no further debate.
  There is another category, which I also mentioned. Sometimes we must make changes very quickly indeed; for example, if a new visa requirement is imposed. If a great deal of knowledge and advance notice is given of that, the obvious difficulties follow. The expected consequences arise and sometimes a regime must be imposed when Parliament is not sitting.
  I repeat that Clause 154 recognises the point made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. In respect of some provisions, the positive procedure is appropriate. I repeat that Clause 154 sets out the provision for that.

  23
  The right reverend Prelate said that our motive is to keep all asylum seekers at bay. I do not think so. We have introduced a proper judicial intervention with written reasons. There will be the presumption of bail. There will be time limits so that family cases are dealt with within two months of an appeal. We hope to guarantee that the appeal is dealt with within a further four months. We are providing decent accommodation with utilities paid for, and which are furnished, containing pots, pans, linen and so on. We are also providing decent opportunities for support.
  Therefore, we are saying to families of asylum seekers that they will not be ignored for three, four or five years; that we shall deal decently, humanely and promptly with their claims within two months; and thereafter that the appeal procedure will be determined in a further four months. That is the proper way in which to deal with asylum seekers in the family context.
  4 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he not agree that so long as the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act remains in place, the proposals for support of asylum seekers, as outlined, and the proposal to criminalise certain activities of asylum seekers are part of the policy that, overall, has the effect of deterring those who want to apply to this country for asylum?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I developed these themes at Second Reading when I pointed out some of the concerns about criminalisation relating to those who were preying on asylum seekers for the purpose of gain. This is a perfectly proper safeguard which should be introduced.
  We want those who have a sustainable claim for asylum to be dealt with in a decent way in terms of time, promptness and presumption of bail. We want them to be dealt with in a proper way so that reasons may be given, and in an appropriate way by providing them with furnished, good quality accommodation, utilities paid for by the state, the opportunity of a grant after six months and a prompt resolution of an outstanding claim.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised a specific point about whether the amendment should properly be inserted after Clause 154. I take his point. If it is to appear in the Bill at all, it might well be properly placed after Clause 154. He approaches the amendment on the basis that it should be in the Bill; I take a different view.
  Lord Renton: Or as a sub-paragraph within Clause 154.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord knows me well enough to know that I will not fall for that either! We take a different view about whether this provision should be a component of the Bill at all.
  I repeat that I understand the questions and concerns which underlie these matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out, we have tried to segregate. If we have got it wrong, or may have got it
  24
  wrong—which, after all, is possible, even in the Home Office—I certainly undertake to think about it, without any guarantee of what the conclusion will be.
  Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for much of what he said. However, before he sits down, perhaps I may ask for a small point of clarification. He said that when the Bill becomes law, the immigration rules will be open to challenge on the ground that they contravene the convention rights. Did he there refer to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on Refugees, or to both?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: To the former.
  Earl Russell: In that case, perhaps the Minister can explain where challenges should be made on the ground that they contravene the UN Convention on Refugees.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I anticipate that legal challenges may be deployed in a wide variety of different legal proceedings. However, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, rightly asked me what I meant by what I said, and I told him what I meant by what I said.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I express my gratitude to the Minister for his willingness at least to consider carefully the debate which has taken place on this new clause. I recognise that at present he is not inclined to yield to the appeals which, I am delighted to say, have come from all Benches, including from the Bishops. However, I hope that he will consider them somewhat further.
  Perhaps I may briefly underline two points. First, in order not to waste the time of the Committee I gave only a brief example of the area where the immigration rules clearly go beyond simply implementing details and enter into a position in which one might say that primary matters of principle are to be considered. I referred in this case to the return to third countries of people to whom there is no reason to believe that any welcome of any kind will be extended.
  Secondly, will the Minister reflect, before Report, on whether a willingness to subject the immigration rules to affirmative resolution might not provide a more complete and satisfactory answer to the charges of those who suggest that the Bill may not be compatible with our commitments under both the European convention and the United Nations covenants? I believe that Parliament will be very good at examining the rules to ensure such compatibility. I fully appreciate that the Minister, for all his extraordinary assiduity and conscientiousness, does not have the time to do everything that this House and the other place could do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 [Leave to enter]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 11, leave out ("leave") and insert ("permission").
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Astor. It is suggested in the groupings that we should also discuss

  25
  two consequential amendments; Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. Had Amendment No. 1 been agreed to, there would have been a vast number of consequential amendments. I did not think it right to fill the groupings list entirely with all such amendments, but merely sufficient to make my point.
  This is a "plain English" amendment. At present, the Bill refers many times to "leave to enter" and "leave to remain", as does the existing legislation. The suggestion of the amendment is that the wording should be altered to "permission to enter" and "permission to remain". This may sound a very small point. However, from discussion with British Airways, I realised that about half the cases in which British Airways finishes up with a carrier's liability charge result from passengers arriving in the United Kingdom either without a visa or with one which has been used or is improper in some way. Quite a high percentage of such cases arise from misunderstandings of the various pieces of paper, either by the potential immigrants or by overseas staff of British Airways who handle such documentation.
  The word "leave" has a number of different meanings. A little later in the Bill, reference is made to people being asked whether or not they have a "leave stamp". Those of us who had at least a little military experience in the course of National Service will think of a leave stamp as something which enables one to go away rather than to come in. I believe that the word "leave" is therefore the wrong word to be used in these circumstances these days. It is true that years ago that term was quite clear. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, no less, opened all our eyes to the possibilities of simplifying legal terms. This seems to come into the same category; hence this rather modest amendment.
  I am aware that the Home Office is working hard to try to simplify the documentation. I commend it on such work and hope that it is going well. In moving the amendment, I believe that such work deserves to succeed. I understand that various working parties are involved. Their work is expected to come to some sort of fruition by next April. It would be helpful to know from the Minister whether it is still realistic to suppose that simpler documentation will be available by that date.
  This is an important issue. After all, by definition we are dealing with people who are often in difficult personal circumstances, particularly those who are genuinely seeking asylum. Often, their first language is not English; indeed, often they do not speak any English. In addition, they may be dealing with airline officials and others whose first language is not English. This is not a trivial matter, but one of importance. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: I appreciate the comments made by my noble friend. However, I hope that I shall not be considered a disloyal Conservative if I say that I have some doubts about his proposal. He referred to the desire of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to simplify legal English. As I understand it, the word "leave" is originally of Anglo-Saxon derivation, whereas the word "permission" is of Latin
  26
  origin. The word "leave" is a shorter word, and it has several meanings, but most people know that one of its most clearly understood meanings is "permission". If we replace the word "leave" as proposed in the amendment, it will have to be altered throughout the statute book.
  I hope that my noble friend does not think that I am teasing him or being difficult, but I notice that in Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 8 he uses the word "leave".
  My most friendly advice, if I dare to give advice to such a noble friend, is not to press the amendment.
  Lord Dholakia: I welcome the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I now understand the Anglo-Saxon explanation. However, as an Indo-Saxon who speaks a number of languages, I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, makes a lot of sense. There is a great deal of confusion and many interpretations of the word "leave", and unless the Minister advises that the word "leave" has a legal significance, the word "permission" would make more sense.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I was bemused to hear the noble Lord conclude his speech by asking for leave. Did he mean permission?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: "Leave to enter" and "leave to remain" both have their origins in the Immigration Act 1971 and they are really technical terms, well known to people in this country and abroad because they are applied to circumstances where an individual is subject to immigration control and therefore requires authorisation to enter or to remain. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right to say that if we started on this giddy path of change, a vast number of changes would be required not only to the Bill but to all the administrative and legal processes involving changes to the relevant legislation, rules and regulations. People do know what the phrases "leave to enter" and "leave to remain" mean; they have been used for almost 30 years; they are technical terms and well understood.
  The noble Lord asked whether we would hope to have completed the work by next April. That is our aim.
  We take the noble Lord's point in regard to the stamp. We are reviewing the endorsements and consulting on them. The issue is what is used on the stamp on the endorsement, not the legislation. Not for the first time I think the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should be followed.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am certainly not going to enter into a competition with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as to who is the better Conservative; I am in no doubt that it is the noble Lord. If any disagreement should lead to a split between us, I will yield at once.
  On the question of whether to prefer the Anglo-Saxon term or the Latin word, Latin has something to recommend it in this context, simply because it is the basis of many other languages, and "permission" is more readily translated into words of a similar character in other languages which come from the same root. Nevertheless, I accept that there would be great

  27
  difficulty in making the change. I acknowledge that there would be a large number of consequential amendments, not least to some of my later amendments on the order paper. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated by his actions that these things had become possible, but perhaps, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that is not entirely the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 5.
  Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
  ("provided that the person is given notice of the duration and conditions of any leave granted, or of the reasons for refusal and the rights of appeal against this.").
  The noble Lord said: There are a number of amendments to be discussed with Amendment No. 5, some of a similar character moved by these Benches, and some from the Government.
  The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that if leave is granted, the person to whom it is granted understands the necessary conditions and timings, which should be in written form. It is important that people other than the individual concerned should understand what the permission amounts to. Breaking a time limit or condition is a criminal offence, and people should not be in a position where they can inadvertently commit a criminal offence. They should also know when they need to apply for an extension of their stay, where applicable.
  It is important that immigration staff and police, for example, should be able to see a piece of paper which clearly states the permission granted, the conditions and the time limit.
  This is a sensible amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Dholakia: I support the amendment. It is often difficult to interpret the stamps on people's passports and to see what conditions have been attached to entry into a country.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has made an important point. It is a criminal offence to break the time limit or condition. It is clear that if people do not understand the provisions in their passports, then they are likely to get into difficulty.
  The people who are responsible for implementing the Immigration Act should also clearly understand the conditions attached to an individual's stay in this country. People could be arrested and detained for some time before the precise nature of the condition was discovered. That is a waste of money and time, and there should be no room for misunderstanding.
  28
  As we move more and more to computerised records, smart cards and other non-written means of communication, it is very important that people should understand precisely the conditions applying to their stay in this country.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for not speaking to Amendment No.6, which, although it has a different character to Amendments Nos. 5 and 8, is included in this grouping.
  The amendment seeks to insert a new paragraph to ensure that only conditions of a kind which can already be imposed on leave to remain may be prescribed under these provisions. Under Section 3 of the 1971 Act there can be a time limit or a restriction or prohibition in relation to employment, a requirement to register with the police and a requirement not to have recourse to public funds.
  It has been suggested to us by the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association that without an amendment of this nature, different conditions could be set by order. I doubt if that is the Government's intention, but it is only right to put the amendment forward in order to probe the matter.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may add a few more arguments in relation to this group of amendments.
  This group includes also a series of amendments to Schedule 13. Anybody who glances at the series of amendments in the name of the Minister under that schedule, will realise the purport and the great significance for individuals of what we are now discussing. In that set of amendments there are references to the rights of immigration officers to detain people who break the conditions attached to their leave or their right to remain. In many cases that constitutes a criminal offence.
  When looking at matters concerning the degree of seriousness that constitute criminality, which in many cases would bar somebody from seeking to try to re-enter this country or enter any other country that could offer them safe refuge, we are looking at issues that concern imprisonment and matters of that kind. Something that becomes very clear when one visits detention centres, as my noble friend Lord Dholakia and I have done on more than one occasion, is how totally confused many of the inmates are in such places. They are confused because they do not understand the language; because they have no concept of their rights under the law; and because they are uncertain of the system in this country. In addition, many are desperately traumatised, unsure of their position and often full of apprehension.
  The laws are so complicated that most of us in this Chamber find them difficult to follow. With regard to the access to information point, my noble friend Lord Avebury has just been to the Printed Paper Office to try to get hold of a copy of HC 395, and found that it is not available. So the information we hoped to have is currently not available. How much more true is that for somebody who is a refugee seeking asylum? At the

  29
  moment information is extremely hard to come by; the most they can normally hope for is the right to make a 'phone call or two, perhaps to the IAS or the Refugee Council, to try to find out what their rights are. They do so under great pressure because they do not have easy access to the money they need to make those telephone calls.
  In that situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, suggested, it is critical that they should have a full statement as to what their rights are; what are their rights of appeal; how they might contact those who can help them and so forth. Without that we are in effect disempowering them, and they are people who perhaps more than any other group in the world need to be empowered.
  But it is more than that. If we accept the reasonable plea on the part of the Minister to accept the good faith of the Home Office, it can only be on the basis that those with whom we are dealing have at least some share in the information that affects their future destiny. For example, the Home Office has our support—as the Minister knows—in terms of trying to stop what one might describe as "rogue lawyers" battling on with the desperate plight of refugees and asylum seekers. But if the asylum seeker has no ability to consider his position, he is a walking victim for the services of those who allege that they can help him. He is not even in a position to make a judgment about his rights and access to appeals.
  I strongly underline, therefore, not only in the case of new information technology which we would welcome, but also in the case of existing structures, that we need a much fuller statement than we have at present of the situation that affects the individuals concerned. Finally, in the event that there is no longer access in writing in the future if we move towards a heavily computerised system—I understand that the Home Office may feel twice bitten on that point—can the Minister assure us as to the means to be used to make the asylum seeker fully aware of his rights and obligations so that he can avoid committing a criminal offence that he may never have intended, but which may be the result of ignorance?
  The Earl of Sandwich: Perhaps I may briefly follow the noble Baroness. It is confusing in Committee to know under which heading to flag up any specific concern. My concern is that the pre-entry controls which come under this clause, such as a visa regime, can militate against torture victims.
  It is worth saying at this point that the White Paper categorically refers to the Government's commitment to help torture victims and to see the whole Bill from their point of view—Sections 9.1 and 9.8. But a lot of evidence has gone through the special standing committee from organisations like Asylum Aid, the Refugee Legal Centre and the Medical Foundation, which indicates that evidence of torture is routinely discounted. There is an anxiety about pre-entry control
  30
  in that regard. However. I only flag up that issue because in this amendment it may be seen as a rather tangential matter.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a large grouping and it may be helpful for me to recite the amendments to be taken together: Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, indicated, and then Amendments Nos. 212 to 216, 218 and 219.
  In relation to the opposition amendments, new Section 3A of the 1971 Act, inserted by Clause 1 of the Bill, enables the Secretary of State to make provision for new ways of,
  "giving, refusing or varying of leave to enter the United Kingdom",
  and new Section 3B of that Act, inserted by Clause 2, enables the Secretary of State to,
  "make provision with respect to the giving, refusing or varying of leave to remain in the United Kingdom".
  The effect of Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 to insert into new Sections 3A and 3B respectively the same requirements for the person to be given notice of the duration and conditions of any leave given or reasons for refusal and the right of appeal. I understand and sympathise with that intention. Our advice is that the amendments are not necessary because it is inconceivable that the powers could be exercised in a way which resulted in these matters not being communicated.
  As regards giving a person notice of reasons for refusal and the rights of appeal against that, the 1971 Act already makes provision which is carried forward in this Bill. Section 18(1) of the 1971 Act provides that,
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—for written notice to be given to a person of any such decision … appealable",
  under that Act—that is, for refusal of leave to enter or remain—and,
  "for any such notice to include a statement of the reasons for the decision",
  as well as particulars of the right of appeal available. That was given effect to in the Immigration Appeals (Notices) Regulations 1984 and is re-enacted in the current Bill in Schedule 4, Part I. Therefore I understand the sentiments behind the amendments, but hope that I have successfully demonstrated that they are not necessary.
  Clause 2 of the Bill inserts a new Section 3B into the 1971 Act. It provides for an order-making power to enable the Secretary of State to,
  "make further provision with respect to the giving, refusing or varying of leave to remain in the United Kingdom".
  Amendment No. 6 wishes to change that to,
  "further provision with respect to the method of giving, refusing or varying".
  The main focus of Clause 2 is the method of giving leave to remain and so forth. As with Clause 1, we want the flexibility to change the methodologies employed—a question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—to make use of emerging technologies; for instance, biometric systems of control, smartcards, and more generally therefore to operate immigration control in a more flexible manner.

  31
  However, as Clause 2(2) makes clear, the order-making power which it seeks to create is intended to go wider than that. In particular, under Clause 2(2)(c), it is intended that we should be able to make provision for leave to remain in some circumstances, "not to lapse on his leaving the common travel area".
  At the moment, any leave lapses if the person concerned leaves the common travel area, which is the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland. We do not believe that that fits modern circumstances. Those with leave to remain in the UK might quite often, validly, wish to leave the common travel area (which is defined quite tightly) for example, for business or holiday reasons. We want to have carefully selected circumstances in which we would be able to remove the stipulation that leave would lapse on leaving the common travel area. That is a benefit rather than a disbenefit to those who presently have leave to remain. On return, the person concerned could be examined by an immigration officer for change of circumstances but there would be no need for the conduct of the full inquiry leading to the grant of leave to remain.
  Amendment No. 6 would insert an unnecessary and unhelpful constriction upon the order-making power and in consequence upon the extent to which we could adapt the immigration control to make it more flexible, responsive and efficient. Subsection (6) of the new Section 3B inserted by Clause 2 provides that any order made under the provisions of Clause 2 is subject to an affirmative resolution, and therefore I invite the Committee to resist that amendment.
  Subsection (2)(b) of the new Section 3B inserted in the 1971 Act by Clause 2 enables an order under subsection (1) to provide for the imposition of conditions. That is linked with subsection (2)(a), which provides for the order to specify the form or manner in which leave may be given, refused or varied. We anticipate adopting new technology, so it would have to be a condition of the grant, refusal or variation of leave in such circumstances that the person concerned conforms to the requirements imposed by technology—for example, that they swipe their smartcard at the immigration control or present themselves in the way required for the operation of a control using biometric parameters.
  Such conditions are not conditions,
  "of a kind that could be imposed on leave to remain given under section 3",
  to quote the language of the amendment. While the conditions concerned would include those conditions, others will have to apply if flexibility is to work properly. I stress that this is a benefit to those persons who may be unduly restricted at present. Amendment No. 7 would impose a restriction whose effect would be to undermine much of the rationale of Clause 2.
  As to the government amendments to Schedules 13 and 15, paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 requires carriers to have the approval of the Secretary of State before they may disembark certain categories of passengers at a port
  32
  other than a designated port of entry. The categories of passengers are those who may not enter the United Kingdom without leave and who have not been given such leave. We want to amend that provision so that the carrier also requires approval to disembark passengers who have been granted leave to enter in advance of their arrival.
  Without the amendment to paragraph 26(1), carriers would be entitled to disembark passengers benefiting from the flexibility provisions of new Section 3A at any port in the United Kingdom without the approval of the Secretary of State. Such passengers would not be examined by an immigration officer, as the Immigration Service would be unaware of their arrival. The amendment will allow examination of such passengers for the purpose of establishing whether a change of circumstances has removed the basis of their leave to enter. Amendment No. 219 to Schedule 15 is consequential.
  It may be appropriate in some circumstances for the Secretary of State to provide for exemption from the requirements of paragraph 26(1) in relation to certain categories of passenger. Sub-paragraph 1A provides an order-making power that will enable the Secretary of State to make such an exemption subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  The 1971 Act makes provision in Schedule 2 for persons who are delayed for further questioning on arrival under paragraph 2 of that schedule to be detained—or alternatively, given temporary admission or bail if the further inquiries cannot be completed quickly. The vast majority of persons in that situation are granted temporary admission.
  We have made new provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to provide by order for certain categories of person to be given leave to enter in advance of arriving at UK immigration control. There is provision for an order to be made providing for leave to enter or remain not to lapse on embarkation. Persons who benefit from those provisions will not require further leave to enter from an immigration officer on arrival and any checks conducted will be to establish that the person presenting the document is the rightful holder.
  There may be some occasions where an immigration officer sees a need to examine such persons in more depth—for instance, where the leave to enter may have been obtained by deception. Paragraph 51 of Schedule 13 to the Bill accordingly introduces a new sub-paragraph 2A into Schedule 2 and provides for leave already obtained to be suspended while any further inquiries are made.
  As with further inquiries conducted under the current paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, there will be occasion when those dealt with under Schedule 2A cannot be completed quickly—for instance, when the visa officer abroad has to be contacted outside office hours. Where that is necessary, we want to provide the immigration officer with the same powers as he has in paragraph 2 for further examination cases, so that he can grant temporary admission, bail or detain pending the conclusion.

  33
  Paragraph 24(1)(a) of Schedule 2 provides that persons subject to examination under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 who abscond from temporary admission are to be treated as though their examination has been concluded. It also provides an exemption from paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, which requires that a notice of refusal must be served within 24 hours of the conclusion of the examination. It is right to extend those provisions to persons subject to examination under new sub-paragraph 2A who abscond.
  On the basis of those explanations, I invite the Committee in due time to accept the government amendments and to reject Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the Minister sits down, he told the Committee in relation to Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 that people were informed of the duration, conditions and so on of the leave granted—or in the case of the right to remain, of the conditions attached. Given the extreme risk to which persons might be exposed if they misunderstood the leave conditions—which could involve a criminal act in the eyes of the state—is the Minister absolutely satisfied that at present, asylum seekers, whether in detention or elsewhere, are fully aware of the conditions attached to any leave granted or any rights of appeal that they may have?
  I am bound to repeat the experience of many noble Lords who have been closely involved in the work of non-governmental organisations for refugees and asylum seekers. A large number of them are completely confused about refugees' rights, the conditions attached to leave and so on. Will the Minister consider—to avoid detention, imprisonment, deportation and the like—whether he is totally satisfied with the official advice that he has received? Have any representations been made to him about the many cases that appear to be in conflict with that professional advice?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did say that it is not conceivable that the powers could be exercised in a way that resulted in matters not being communicated. On the specific point made by the noble Baroness about reasons for refusal and rights of appeal, the 1971 Act already contains such a provision, which is carried forward in the intricate way that I described.
  I am not absolutely positive that we have got it right and that the noble Baroness has got it wrong. I repeat what I said on Second Reading. I am more than happy to have meetings with noble Lords in all parts of the Committee, whether or not they wish to bring advisers, if they want to see me or to see me with officials. If the noble Baroness thinks that it would be helpful as a first step to set out her points of concern in writing, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, officials and I always stand ready to discuss matters further.
  Earl Russell: If I heard the Minister correctly, he said in relation to Amendment No. 5 that it was inconceivable that proper reasons would not be given for the rejection of an application. I wonder if that word was just a little imprudent. The Minister is probably familiar with the publication by Asylum Aid, Still No Reason at All. It
  34
  rests on a quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, that if reasons are unintelligible, that amounts to giving no reason at all.
  I will quote only two examples from that book, which is substantial. The first is a case for which the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, deserves some credit. A torture victim from North Cyprus, bearing a considerable number of scars on his back, medically attested, was told that he had inflicted them on himself, to enhance his claim. In the other case, a person was told that his credibility had been severely damaged by having put in a fraudulent insurance claim since his arrival in the UK—which he had not done. His lawyer drew the attention of the Home Office to the fact that he had not done so, but got back the identical refusal letter minus only the paragraph about the insurance. I believe that we are unwise to use the word "inconceivable" in this area.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Ear] is mistaking the point completely. If he will allow me to say so, his two examples demonstrated that reasons were given. The noble Baroness wants to ensure that reasons are given. Therefore, she has fired at one target, but I believe that the noble Earl's aim on this occasion has been defective. If he wants the same as the noble Baroness, my invitation remains open. I understand what has directed the noble Baroness, but the examples given by the noble Earl related to cases where reasons were given but they were the wrong reasons. That is a completely different point from the one made by the noble Baroness.
  Viscount Brentford: I should like clarification of a point made by the noble Lord on Amendment No. 5. As I understand it, this amendment would make it necessary for a notice to be given. But, if I heard the noble Lord correctly, he said that the 1971 Act states that the Minister "may" give notice. It may be inconceivable that notice would not be given. However, if I heard the noble Lord correctly, would it not be better for the law to make it necessary rather than just saying that the Minister "may" give notice?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said that Section 18(1) of the 1971 Act says:
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations provide … for written notice to be given … [and] for any such notice to include a statement of the reasons for the decision".
  So the "may" there does not relate to "may give reasons", it relates to "may provide for regulations" which. in turn, provide for reasons to be given. I am sure that it was my fault, but I believe that the noble Viscount has taken the two steps as if they were one. I went on to say that that statutory provision was indeed given effect to in the Immigration Appeals Notices Regulations 1984 and it is re-enacted in the present Bill under Part I of Schedule 4.
  Lord Avebury: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the use of pro forma refusals in which the wording is in identical terms, with simply the name of the applicant crossed out and replaced by another name; and, indeed, the name of the country being replaced by

  35
  another. How can one say that an application has been properly considered and notice properly given when such things happen regularly?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I understand the point, but it is not the point which forms the basis of these amendments. In Amendment No. 5, the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Astor, wanted the following words to be added to Clause 1(2),
  "provided that the person is given notice of the duration and conditions of any leave granted, or of the reasons for refusal and the rights of appeal against this".
  That does not bite on whether or not the reasons are given on a pro forma, or whether they are individually hand-written; it relates to,
  "notice of the duration and conditions of any leave granted, or of the reasons for refusal and the rights of appeal".
  That is not the same point as the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If I may say so without disrespect, the point has been identified by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and revisited by the noble Baroness. Although the other points may be of some interest, they do not relate to this amendment.
  Lord Avebury: Nevertheless, does the noble Lord agree that an amendment should be made which would provide that the application has to be properly considered by the immigration officer, and that the reasons given should reflect the consideration of the actual circumstances of the applicant and not be set out in a general pro-forma kind of refusal?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is confusing two situations. No one can come to a decision which is lawful without putting his mind to the relevant matters. The noble Lord has pointed out that, very often, the answers are given pro forma. That may or may not be so. I do not suggest for one moment that he is not accurate on the basis of his experience. However, that is not the same as whether or not the decision was properly made in the first place.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: On the question of pro-forma statements being given to applicants, given the numbers involved, the fact that in many instances there will be great similarities between the cases and bearing in mind my experience of government departments, it seems to me to be inevitable that they should be pro forma to a certain extent, whether it is obvious on the face of a piece of paper or whether it comes out of a word processor in the form of different paragraphs. My experience of such cases is not as great as that of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or of other Members of the Committee who have spoken, but I can recollect constituency immigration cases over the years. Indeed, on many occasions, it was extremely difficult to fathom precisely what the legal position was from what the individual or those supporting him said. That is why I have sympathy with the amendment.
  I do not seek to limit the ability of the Home Office to develop the use of smartcards, which, if properly used, would be most helpful. However, in view of what has
  36
  happened with other great technological projects, I think that the Home Office should be cautious and take its time about such developments. Nevertheless, a move in that direction will be desirable in time.
  I am less immediately happy about the use of biometric parameters, simply because I am not quite sure what they are. I take them to apply to fingerprints or, indeed, other ways of measuring an individual's characteristics. If that is so, and if they can be properly implemented, I think that that might well be developed to the great advantage of both immigrants and asylum seekers, as well as assisting the authorities.
  Overall, it seemed to me that the Minister produced some reasons against these amendments which sounded plausible. I do not want that to be seen as a criticism of the way that the Minister put them across, but I should like to study them more carefully before committing myself to being 100 per cent satisfied with them. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Earl Russell: I have one question for the Minister at this point. I apologise for not giving him notice of it before, but Sunday afternoon was not a good time to do so—
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I should tell the noble Earl that I have received the notice.
  Earl Russell: I am very glad to hear that. My question relates to Clause 1(7), which reads:
  "The Secretary of State may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed in an order made by him, give or refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom".
  I simply want to know whether this subsection confers Henry VIII powers.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most obliged to the noble Earl; I received notice of his question as we were about to begin today's proceedings on the Bill.
  As the noble Earl rightly said, Clause 1(7) enables the Secretary of State to grant or refuse leave to enter. At present, only immigration officers can do this. My advice is that this does not make subsection (7) a Henry VIII power because the requisite provision is on the face of the legislation.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Leave to remain]:
  [Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Continuation of leave pending decision]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 3, leave out lines 32 to 37.
  The noble Lord said: This is, essentially, a probing amendment. It deals with Clause 3 of the Bill which inserts a new Section 3C into the 1971 Act. The new

  37
  section relates to someone who has had limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but who, before his permission expires, applies for it to be varied—presumably by having it extended, as is the case in the vast majority of cases. However, at the time the date is reached no decision has been taken on the application. This is. of course, by no means an unusual circumstance. Many people wait for a long time to obtain a decision from the Home Office. We all wish that did not happen but it does.
  My amendment seeks to delete the proposed new Section 3C(3) and (4). These proposed new subsections contain extremely complicated wording. I am not at all sure what the intention of those proposed new subsections is. Is it intended that someone should not be able to seek leave to remain on a different basis, even if his or her circumstances have changed during the period of their permitted residence here? If that is the case, that seems unduly hard as people's circumstances change, particularly over the period of a year or two and they ought to be able to make an application on a different basis if their circumstances change. Further, it is suggested that the measure seeks to ensure that any new application made during the waiting period would not, if refused, attract a right of appeal. I believe that at least in some circumstances a right of appeal would be entirely justified.
  The proposed new subsection (4) states that,
  "the variation of an application mentioned in subsection (1)",
  is still permitted. I find it difficult to ascertain the difference between a new application and a variation of an application. If a person's circumstances have changed presumably it is only a question of how the application is drafted that determines whether it is a wholly new application on a different basis as opposed to a variation; for example, if it contains details of a subsequent marriage, or children or other change of circumstance other than the mere passage of time. Yet a great deal seems to hinge on the distinction between a new application or a variation of an existing one. As I hope I have made apparent, what I seek is an explanation of what these two proposed new subsections seek to achieve. That will enable us to consider whether we should support them.
  These are complicated legal points but they are underpinned by extremely practical consequences for the individuals concerned. They are not just niceties to he discussed in Parliament or in a court of law. They have real effects on the ground in terms of the effects of this legislation and how it is understood by advisers, or by individuals whose whole lives can hinge on decisions that are made under the provisions of these proposed new subsections. I beg to move.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I seek further clarification on this matter. I believe it would be helpful to all of us if the Minister could mention the number of people who are already seeking continuation of leave pending a decision. That would help us to put the importance of this clause into perspective. In the course of, for example, a year, how many people would normally seek this kind of provision?
  38
  The Minister will know that not only do individuals' circumstances change, but there are changes in the countries which people have left. The deteriorating political circumstances and human rights situations in those countries may well render it unsafe for people to return to those countries even though they may have been relatively safe 'when asylum in the United Kingdom was first sought. When considering the applications we are discussing, do the Minister and his officials take into account extenuating personal circumstances? If someone's health has radically deteriorated or if family or other pressures have been placed on a person, would those circumstances be taken into account before arriving at a conclusion?
  Lord Avebury: I experience the same difficulties as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in understanding the purport of the clause. I hope that the Minister will explain why the period allowed under rules made under paragraph 3 to Schedule 4 for bringing an appeal is relevant to the case we are discussing. The time during which a person who has limited leave to enter or remain and is to be treated as continuing to have that liberty to leave or remain seems to be a fixed period that could be embodied in this proposed new section rather than dealt with by reference to Schedule 4 to the Bill which covers a completely different point.
  What happens when the period that is mentioned expires? Can the Minister give the Committee some idea of what the length of time during which the leave to remain continues is likely to be because one cannot tell that from the wording as it stands? What happens when that comes to an end? Let us suppose that a person enters the country for a period of six months as a visitor and at the end of the fifth month he applies to have that period extended. That is a perfectly normal procedure. One can have a six-month visit extended to 12 months. At the end of five months the person asks for an extension of six months. However, by the end of the first period of his leave to remain the Home Office has not yet replied and therefore his leave to remain is treated as continuing for the period that is mentioned in the proposed new Section 3C(2).
  Let us say for the sake of argument that a period of two months is allowed for the appeal under Schedule 4. After seven months the person may still not have had a reply from Lunar House—that is the normal state of affairs as staff there do not reply within two months to any kind of an application arid they will probably have lost the file anyway—and his leave is no longer treated as continuing. Presumably it expires and therefore from the end of the seventh month his presence is illegal, notwithstanding the fact that he lodged the application for an extension of stay and he wishes to remain here for 12 months. What does such a person do in those circumstances?
  Lord Dholakia: The two proposed new subsections that we are discussing have given rise to much confusion. As I understand the position, if one is

  39
  admitted to this country with a limit on one's stay, one cannot apply to vary that decision. However, if a decision has not been taken in relation to a person's application, I believe that he has the opportunity to apply for a variation of his leave. Am I right in my understanding of the position?
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I am grateful for the opportunity to try to explain the clause. The points that have been made merit an explanation. If someone has a limited leave to enter and he applies to vary that leave before his leave expires but his case is not dealt with before the leave expires, the proposed new Section 3C(2) ensures that he is treated as being lawfully in the country until the application is determined and he is given the chance to appeal. Therefore his lawful leave is extended until the time for appealing expires. So it is not just until the resolution of stage one, but also to give him an opportunity to appeal.
  We do not want that system to be abused, so subsection (3) prevents people, after their first application has been refused, from putting in another application; thereby once again triggering subsection (2); thereby extending the time and starting the whole process again; thereby permitting an applicant to, in effect, stay for ever in this country simply by putting in new applications in the period between the rejection of the first application and the time for appeal expiring.
  However, as noble Lords have pointed out, what if circumstances change? What then is the position? That is dealt with by subsection (4). Nothing in subsection (3) prevents the variation of an application made under subsection (1). If circumstances change, that can be reflected in an amendment to the application made by the applicant. The noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley, Lord Avebury and Lord Alton of Liverpool, asked about that.
  That scheme ensures that a person can stay while his case is properly heard and gives the right of the appeal; it also ensures that changes of circumstances can he taken into account; and it ensures that the situation is not abused by people making multiple applications simply to take advantage of the fact that as long as an application is made before leave is expired, or it has been extended because an application is being made, the time is simply pushed forward and forward.
  The clause effectively incorporates the Immigration (Variation of Leave) Order 1976 into the body of its parent Act. It goes slightly further. While the order likewise prevents a person from remaining indefinitely by virtue of a series of applications, it allows concurrent applications on different bases to attract separate rights of appeal. This Bill allows only one appeal, thereby preventing multiple applications and multiple appeals.
  I hope that I have explained the issue clearly enough. I think it meets all the objections that have been made.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I asked in my earlier intervention whether the Minister could give the Committee an estimate of the number of people who seek variations in the course of an average year so that we can get some idea of the scale of the problem.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord did ask that. I cannot give an answer off the top of my head. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord in relation to that matter.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's explanation. It was clear and, as far as I am concerned, sounded acceptable. I am still a little confused about what is a "variation" as opposed to a new application. I give an example. A female student may come here on that basis to study, and has leave for a certain time. During that time she marries her British boyfriend and the couple decide that they want to go on living in this country. In that case, she needs not only a variation, as it were, but permission on a new basis. She is now applying as a married woman, or a potentially married woman, to stay on account of her marriage and not because of anything to do with her student application, which would obviously be temporary. I understand that she would have to fill in different application forms; she would have to fill in application form FLRM for permission to stay as a married woman, whereas she would have previously filled in FLRS, which is a student application. That sounds to me like a new application but, from what the noble and learned Lord said, it would be treated as a variation. I should be grateful for a little more enlightenment on that matter.
  Lord Avebury: Perhaps the Minister will at the same time deal with a case of a female student who, rather than getting married, wishes to continue to study for a PhD. Having first of all applied to come here to study for a degree, of course, she would have signed a declaration that she undertook to leave at the end of the course of studies. But she does extremely well at university, she looks like getting a first-class degree; her tutors recommend her to go on and study for a PhD, so she puts in an application to vary her leave to remain so that she can stay at the university for another two years. Is that a new application, or is it a variation of leave to remain for educational purposes?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In all of these cases, it is quite difficult to identify where the line is to be drawn. I am wary of setting out in an answer to these particular examples precisely where the line is to be drawn. Where one is putting forward completely new grounds for wanting to stay, I expect that it would normally be a new application. Perhaps I may study what both noble Lord s have said and write to them in order to give a considered answer.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: We are happy to give leave for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Charges]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 4, line 4, at beginning insert ("If a fee is prescribed in connection with an application of a particular kind,").
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 18, 43 and 54. All of them are drafting amendments.
  Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 reinforce subsection (4) of Clause 4 and reflect the fact that there will not be prescribed fees for applications which are to be free of charge. As to Amendment No. 18, it is considered that the definition in subsection (6) is not required. With regard to Amendment No. 43, as Clause 23 stands at present it is not on its face clear whether the offence under Section 25(1)(b) of the 1971 Act is disapplied where a person meets both paragraphs (a) and (b) of the new subsection (1A) or whether it is meant to be an "either/or". Amendment No. 43 simply makes clear that it is an "or".
  Amendment No. 54 is an example of the benefit of examination in Committee since it derives from an amendment proposed in another place which the Minister, Mr O'Brien, agreed to consider. New Section 25A of the Immigration Act 1971, inserted by Clause 31, provides the power to detain a relevant ship, aircraft or vehicle when a person has been arrested for an offence under Section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 25A(1) allow detention to continue, barring any intervention from the court, until a decision is made whether or not to charge the arrested person or, if charged, until he is acquitted or convicted, until the court decides whether or not to order forfeiture of the ship, aircraft or vehicle.
  As currently drafted, Clause 31 makes no provision for the eventuality that the charges are withdrawn or dismissed. Amendment No. 54 provides for that outcome. I commend all the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkley: They seem a rather motley collection of drafting amendments. Nevertheless, each one seems acceptable.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I shall be a little more critical than the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. It is very hard to understand in any lay sense that Amendment No. 10 satisfies the requirements that have been pressed very hard, and to which the Government have committed themselves, with regard to respect for the European Convention on Human Rights and for the Geneva Convention 1951. It may be that that phrase satisfactorily indicates that no fees will be charged in these cases, but the reason my colleagues and I will be bringing forward Amendment No. 13 is because it is very unclear to us that Amendment No. 10 achieves that end. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be kind enough to explain.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The only effect of Amendment No. 10 is that there will not be prescribed
  42
  fees for applications which are to be free of charge. As a matter of drafting, it makes the point that if it is free, it is free. When we get to Amendment No. 13 we will discuss the matter. As to the ECHR point, the amendment is indicating that there will he certain that are free. It does no more than say that if they are free, there will be no prescribed charge.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I wish to be sure I am not confused. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that, in effect, this does not indicate that clearly in those categories there will be no fee; it just gives the right to charge no fee in certain cases?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What it says is that there will be no prescribed fee for applications which are to be free of charge, although it leaves it open as to the particular kind of application. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 4, line 5, leave out ("prescribed").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 4, line 7, at end insert ("where, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, the applicant has—

  (a) insufficient means to pay any prescribed charges; or

  (b) the applicant is below the age of 16 years; or

  (c) the applicant is in receipt of any benefit").

  The noble Lord said: If the noble and learned Lord is to respond to this amendment as well, I have high hopes, as it was suggested to me by the Law Society of Scotland. Hence my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon was also prepared to support it. It is suggested that we should discuss with it Amendment No. 13, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16.
  All these amendments refer to the question of fees and charges being made. Amendment No. 12 attempts to ensure that those who do not have access to the necessary money to pay such fees are not prejudiced in their rights to apply for leave to remain, variation. or whatever. Access to those rights should not be restricted to those who have the ability to pay. That is the bottom line of the case, and it has strong moral backing. We all agree that genuine asylum seekers, for example, should be able to come to this country. The proposal has, in addition, the backing of the 1951 convention. Our international obligations seem to suggest that we should not try to keep people out merely because they cannot pay the fees. I shall leave the noble Baroness to speak to Amendment No. 13, which would have a similar effect.
  Amendment No. 14 suggests that no fee should be payable by those granted leave to enter or remain as students. It is an important provision. This country has a long tradition of admitting people from abroad to institutions of higher learning. It has been of great benefit—not only to the countries from which such students come, but also to this country—that they have received an important part of their education here. Many

  43
  go on to become leaders in their own countries and retain a sympathy for this country and its views as a result of time spent at university here or otherwise studying. A very good case in point is that of King Hussein, whose memorial service I attended last week in St Paul's cathedral. He retained a sympathy for this country throughout his life as a result of having attended Sandhurst. That is an extreme example, but there are many others at a lower level.
  Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 both flow from the report that we discussed earlier of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That committee—which is rightly held in high esteem in this House—accepted the argument as regards the general wording of the clause. However, the committee considered that the exemption from fees of asylum seekers under the 1951 refugee convention and those claiming Article 3 ECHR protection should be placed on the face of the Bill. There is a good argument for that.
  The committee referred to a suggestion in the Home Office's explanatory memorandum to the Bill that there should, for example, be no fee where the application has been occasioned by a mistake of the Secretary of State. I take that to mean the Secretary of State or one of his officials. That seems exactly right. Rather than leaving it merely to the charity, as it were, of the Secretary of State to relieve an applicant of the fee in that case, the committee believed that it would be manifestly unjust for a fee to be paid in those circumstances and that that proviso should also to be on the face of the Bill. That argument seemed to me to carry weight; therefore, I tabled Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: First, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, in moving his Amendment No. 12. We on these Benches fully agree with its attempt to limit the effects of any fees that may be charged in such a way that income does not become the criterion of whether one has the right to enter this country. That is surely a principle with which the present Government would not wish to be associated. Having indicated our strong support for Amendment No. 12, I want to underline the reasons why we believe it to be inconceivable that the Government should not accept Amendment No. 13.
  In Committee in another place, the Minister said:
  "I can give a clear and categorical assurance that no fee will be levied on applications under article 3 of the ECHR or under the 1951 convention for granting refugee status".
  That was confirmed in a letter from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davies, which stated:
  "Let me assure you that the Government is fully committed to ensuring that the United Kingdom continues scrupulously to observe its obligations to refugees under the 1951 Geneva Convention".
  Both of those points were then taken up by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The committee strongly advised as follows:
  "We consider, however that Clause 4 should be amended to place on the face of the Bill the exemption from fees of asylum seekers under the 1951 refugee convention and those claiming Article 3 ECHR protection".
  44
  So there is a clear commitment, stated on more than one occasion, by Her Majesty's Government.
  Secondly, there is a clear statement by the Select Committee on delegated legislation that this provision should properly be on the face of the Bill, and not simply be buried in a series of commitments that will be carried out over the years in orders and regulations. Thirdly, it is completely clear that both the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights make it plain that any charging of a fee would be seen to be effectively in derogation from those conventions and commitments. Indeed, I note that Justice went as far as to claim that this would be ultra vires of those commitments. Not being a lawyer, I am not in a position to say whether that is correct.
  In relation to Amendment No. 13, I strongly urge the Government to state specifically on the face of the Bill that they will carry out those commitments in full, and will do so by making it plain that no fee of any kind should be charged to those who seek entry to this country under the terms of Article 3 of the European Convention or the refugee convention.
  There are two other parts to the amendment. The first concerns family members. I accept that they do not come under the terms of the European convention or the refugee convention as such. Nevertheless, it has always been the policy of this and previous governments to accept family unification as a very desirable objective. It must be remembered that family members seeking to join others who are already settled in this country will already, under present arrangements, have paid a fairly hefty visa fee amounting to £240 per person. If they have been given the normal one year's leave to remain and they must pay all over again for the right to stay as family members—it having been accepted in principle that they should be allowed to do so—that is a very heavy fine on the reunification of families.
  In the case of many families a fee of £240 per head will already be a very difficult charge to meet. If on top of that a further fee is charged for family members, that may well present a barrier to the reunification of families, which I am sure cannot be the intention of the Government.
  Many of those who are settled here already are not particularly well off and do not command high wages. They may have to pay substantial sums for the cost of bringing family members to this country legally, possibly from southern Asia, Africa or other parts of the world. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can make a clear statement that those family members who have already been charged for visa applications—he may want to set a period; for example, within the previous 24 months—should not be made to pay a further fee to enable their families to be reunited.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to students who form the last group referred to in my amendment. That part of the amendment is concerned with those who seek the right to remain here to continue their studies. It is worth saying that higher and further education have become two of the most successful and economically advanced sectors of our economy that provide substantial employment to a large number of

  45
  people. Therefore, it would be wise not to charge fees to those who seek to pursue bona fide studies in this country.
  I conclude with a question. In the Explanatory Notes relating to this clause the Home Office says that the full cost of processing may be the basis on which fees are charged. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give the Committee some indication of the basis on which fees will be charged. If the full cost of running the immigration department is shared out among those fees in such a way as to cover a substantial part of that cost. it would be, to say the least, extremely unfair that those who attempt to reach this country as asylum seekers or refugees should meet the costs of the mistakes relating to computers. While I fully accept that those mistakes are not the responsibility of any one government, it would be unfair and unjust that refugees and asylum seekers should have to pay for those very large costs. Perhaps the Minister can let us know his intentions and say whether he is able to accept at least the first part of this amendment in line with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. It is entirely right that those who fall into these categories should not be prevented by lack of means from making application, and I am sure that that is a principle that we all accept. As to Amendment No. 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I am in some confusion as to why fees are being charged. The noble Baroness suggested that it was in order to meet the costs of running the system, which may be the case. But I presume that there is a motive other than simply swelling the coffers of the Treasury. Is one possible motive for charging fees to prevent applications without foundation clogging up the system? I recognise that that may be a proper motivation. Clearly, frivolous applications should be discouraged, and if payment of a fee has that effect clearly that is right. But if that is so the four categories spelt out in Amendment No. 13 will always he ones in which matters of, great significance are being considered and, therefore, are never frivolous.
  The noble Baroness has already argued the case for applications for asylum and applications made under any international instrument to which the UK has given its signature on the basis of conformity with the human rights legislation. However, those two categories and the other two that she mentioned—application to remain with family members for settlement and applications for further leave to remain to continue studies—will always be significant applications and should never be regarded as frivolous. Therefore, I hope that they will not be regarded as applications that require a fee.
  Lord Dholakia: I add my support to my noble friend Lady Williams. She gave the interesting example of the extent to which fees have been charged for visas to people who have already entered this country. I have been able to gather some figures to give an indication as to the trend of passing on the cost of immigration control to those who are least able to pay. One is talking
  46
  of family members of ethnic minority communities who are already settled here. Of the 44,360 family members granted settlement in 1997, 12,000 were from the countries of the Indian subcontinent, 5,760 from the remainder of Asia and 10,050 from Africa. One believes that they should not have to pay twice for the same family unity.
  We tend to forget that people who come here to live, particularly adults who have been educated and trained elsewhere, represent a saving to the United Kingdom and make a valuable contribution to society here. I cite the example of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. It is not clear whether the fees are now in surplus, but certainly some time ago the total of the fees charged for nationality applications was far in excess of the costs incurred. The last thing that one wants to do, in view of the backlog of passport and immigration and asylum applications, is to impose a further restriction and charge fees that create another administrative procedure which will provide a less efficient and effective service to those who require that particular help.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The common thread running through all these amendments is that they seek to relieve certain categories of applicant from paying fees for after entry applications. Amendment No. 12 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, would mean that certain children and young persons and those who are less well off should not be required to pay fees. We have already matte clear that some types of application will not attract a fee. Asylum seekers will probably be the largest category. But it is not our intention to remit fees because of the personal circumstances of individuals. In general, the immigration rules specify that applicants who seek entry or further leave to remain here can be supported without recourse to public funds and, in many cases, without working. The rules also contain a list of social benefits, recourse to which is incompatible with the grant of leave to enter or remain.
  The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, does not define the terms "insufficient means" or "any benefit" and I cannot accept it on that ground alone. But it would be difficult to compile a list of benefits which was not covered in part at least by those set out in the immigration rules. The amendment makes provision for applications to be considered free of charge if the applicant is said to be unable to pay the fee, when the reason for the inability to pay would, in many cases, be inconsistent with the requirements of the rules and would lead inevitably to a refusal of the application. I suggest that it is not right for the Home Office to incur costs in considering a gratis application which is likely to fail in such circumstances.
  On a more practical level, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is keen to ensure that the staff of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon should apply their expertise to considering the relevant immigration law requirements in individual cases without being distracted on issues of whether individual

  47
  applicants are required to pay a fee. Indeed, the extra time in doing so would increase costs and fee levels. That is in no one's interests.
  The amendment also includes a proposal that all applicants below 16 should not be charged for their applications. Whether or not such young persons are in this country as part of a family unit or in their own right, I see no reason why the normal policy should not be applied and the costs of processing the applications be recovered.
  I now turn to the first amendment on this clause, Amendment No. 14, in the joint names of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Amendment No. 14 would relieve students of the requirement to pay fees. The burden of the amendment is supported in effect by Amendment No. 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
  Paragraph 58 of the immigration rules empowers an immigration officer to admit a person for the length of his course of study if the requirements of paragraph 57 of the rules are met. This provision is to the benefit of all genuine students and relieves them of the need to make an application to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office. So, they would not incur any fees under this clause. It has been suggested that immigration officers do not fully apply this paragraph in the rules. I assure Members of the Committee that the vast majority of students experience no difficulty, but there are bound to be exceptions.
  Decisions made by immigration officers reflect the particular circumstances of individual passengers and there could be any number of reasons why students are not given leave for the full period of their course. It may be that, for example, the immigration officer is not fully satisfied that the requirements of the immigration rules have been met perhaps because of a lack of full documentary evidence but is not so dissatisfied that an applicant should be refused leave to enter. Leave may accordingly be granted for a period shorter than the period of the course. I assume that Members of the Committee would prefer that course to be taken rather than the student being refused leave to enter or being detained pending further inquiries. In such a situation, it is right and proper that, before any extension of stay is granted, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the full requirements of the rules are met in the context of an application for leave to remain. Surely it is right that, having been given the benefit of the doubt on entry into this country, individual students should meet the additional costs involved in their satisfying the Secretary of State that they qualify for an extension of stay. There is a cost to the taxpayer in that and I see no reason why students should be exempt from the general proposal that they should meet the cost of their application. I emphasise that that is in the context that most students make their application not through the IND but otherwise, and have leave to stay for the whole of the course which costs them nothing. I am talking only about students who, having arrived, need to apply for variation.
  48
  There are other circumstances in which the original grant of leave to enter is not an issue. Some applicants seek to switch into student status after being admitted in another category; some students decide to change their course, and some pursue a series of short courses. Under the terms of the amendment, such applicants would not have to pay. But such applications arise out of choices made by the applicants and I am not persuaded that they should not meet the cost of processing their applications. For all those reasons, I regret that I cannot commend to the Committee the amendment relating to students.
  I now turn to the second of the amendments to this clause, Amendment No. 15, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which provides that it should be stated on the face of the Bill that no fee should be paid by asylum seekers or those claiming protection under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, also by implication covers the point. She was explicit that that was one of the matters she expressly seeks to be covered. As she forcefully said, the thrust of this amendment was also recommended by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and in the memorandum prepared by Justice, which many of noble Lords will have seen. Let me say at the outset that the Government's policy is fully consistent with the burden of this amendment. We have consistently made it clear that we do not propose to charge a fee for considering applications from asylum seekers or those claiming protection under Article 3 of the ECHR. I should make clear that that is consistent with the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. When an identical amendment was considered in another place, it was not pressed to a vote. But I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee that I am now in a position to accept the principle behind the amendment that the matter should be included on the face of the Bill. The Government would, however, like to consider further the exact drafting of the addition to the Bill and I undertake to bring a government amendment back to your Lordships' House. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lords will be able to withdraw the amendment.
  I move now to Amendment No. 16 which asks for the Bill to include a statement to the effect that no fee will be payable if an application has been occasioned by a mistake of the Secretary of State. This amendment follows from a suggestion made in the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I think that it will be clear from the memorandum the Government laid before the Select Committee that we are seized of the possibility that errors may occur and that applicants should not incur additional costs as a result of that. If an application needs to be made purely as a result of an error by, or on behalf of, my right honourable friend, we shall not exact a fee for that application. That is only fair and just. But I do not want noble Lords to think there is a large problem here. Clause 4(3) of the Bill already provides power for no fee to be prescribed in certain circumstances. I do not believe that it is necessary for

  49
  such a provision to be included on the face of the Bill. This is not generally done. I have made our policy position clear and I should make it clear that the Home Office has no monopoly within the public or the private sector with regard to making an occasional error. We shall ensure that when fee regulations are made, appropriate provision is made to deal with errors which may occur. This would substantially comply with the suggestion from the Select Committee that applicants should not lose out through an official error. I hope that the Committee feels able to accept this assurance from me.
  Lastly, I turn to Amendment No. 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I have already addressed some parts of this in the context of other amendments. The facets not already covered involve the suggestion that applications made under any international agreement which the United Kingdom has signed should not incur a charge and that applications from family members should likewise be free of charge. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness has particular international agreements in mind, but our position on those normally involving immigration—the refugee convention and the ECHR—is abundantly clear. For an Act of Parliament to guarantee a service without charge for applications under any international agreement to be signed in the future is, I think, going too far and I do not think that the Committee would wish to legislate along those lines. I submit that it is better for the matter to be left to secondary legislation.
  On the question of dependants, this could apply to minors or adults. The general position in the immigration rules is that those seeking settlement as dependants have to be supported and accommodated by their sponsors. One must suppose that there is to be a benefit to both the applicants and their families in their being allowed to stay in this country. If part of the cost of the family members staying here is the immigration application fee, that, I suggest, is a cost which legitimately falls to the family rather than the taxpayer. More importantly, however, noble Lords will want to bear in mind that people who wish to come to this country to settle need an entry clearance for that purpose. Dependants with entry clearances will be granted indefinite leave on arrival and should not need to apply for further leave. So no costs under this clause would apply. It is important not to encourage any circumvention of this requirement by allowing applicants to come to this country in another capacity without entry clearance and then seeking to settle without paying an appropriate fee.
  I am corrected by officials in relation to one point. In relation to those students who apply in advance, I said that most students pay nothing. They pay nothing on entry, but some will have paid for an entry clearance either voluntarily or because they are visa nationals and require one. So I should correct myself on that point.
  I was asked what the charges will be and whether the full cost of the service will be recovered. It was suggested that it is quite wrong, as a matter principle, that entrants should pay for computer contracts that go wrong, for example. I do not know the answers to those questions, so I will write to the noble Lord.
  50
  I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I invite the Committee to reject it as the Government will introduce an amendment to place on the face of the Bill the principle that fees will not be required when considering applications from asylum seekers or those claiming protection under Article 3 of the ECHR.
  Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may pick up on the noble and learned Lord's comments about students who come to this country to undertake a four-year course of study and who are not permitted entry for the whole of the four years because there is presumably some doubt about their applications, despite the fact that those students have been accepted by recognised institutions of higher or further education.
  Let us say that a student comes to this country to undertake a four-year course of study and is admitted for only three years in the first instance because the Secretary of State has some doubts about whether he is a bona fide student and is capable of benefiting from the course, in spite of the fact that he has been accepted by a recognised institution of higher education. Let us assume also that, after three years, that student applies to stay in this country for a fourth year and submits a report from the university to the effect that he has performed reasonably and is expected to get a lower second-class degree or whatever. In those circumstances, has not the Secretary of State made a mistake and should not the fee be remitted for that reason?
  Why should the student have to pay when he is doing reasonably well at university and will complete his course as originally intended? The doubts that the Secretary of State had that caused him to admit that student for only three-quarters of the time that the student required to complete his degree have not been satisfied and the student has performed as expected at university. Why should that student have to pay a fee for an application that allows him to complete his course because the Secretary of State made a mistake in his initial assessment?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It would be inappropriate to comment about the facts of a particular case. We are considering whether student applications should always be free. The circumstances in which students will need to make another application after arriving in this country will vary from individual case to individual case. We believe that it is wrong that such applications should be free.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: In view of the fact that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, bridge my amendments, I ask the Minister to allow me to discuss Amendment No. 13 before the noble Lord turns to Amendment No. 12 and subsequent amendments. I thank the Minister warmly for his concession that the provision will go on the face of the Bill. That will be appreciated in both Houses of Parliament.

  51
  I turn to two matters that were left somewhat open in the Minister's helpful reply. The first concerns the loose wording of my amendment—namely, the phrase:
  "applications made under any international instrument".
  It is fair to say that one instrument I had in mind was the convention against torture. I understand fully that, in most cases, there will be a close correlation between those who try to enter this country under the refugee convention and those who might try to enter under the convention against torture. Many noble Lords are extremely concerned about the victims of torture, who have a prima facie case for being treated as honest and genuine sufferers of persecution. That is the particular international convention that I had in mind.
  As to the second point about families, I ask the Minister to consider—he may be kind enough to write to me—the family reunification cases that emerge when a relative is given only a limited right to remain in this country. I understand from legal bodies in the field that many relatives who receive permission to join someone who has settled in this country are granted only a relatively brief period of leave, with the matter to be considered later. If those relatives pay a visa fee and are allowed to remain in this country for only a short time—perhaps a year, for example—should they have to pay a further fee for an application to settle in this country? Would the Minister consider that one charge might be sufficient?
  That is a technical point about which the Minister may want to write to me. However, I believe that it is separate from the issues with which the Minister dealt so fully and helpfully in his closing remarks.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As far as concerns the torture convention, it is implicit in the noble Baroness's comments that such people seek to come to this country because they fear persecution abroad. That would make them asylum seekers and, as such, they would not be charged a fee for the reasons that I have outlined.
  I will write to the noble Baroness about her second question concerning the visa fee and the separate application fee. My initial reaction is that they are two entirely different things. Therefore, there is no reason for not imposing a fee in relation to the leave-to-enter application. Nevertheless, I will consider the matter properly and write to the noble Baroness about it.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble and learned Lord the Minister has granted one concession—if that is the appropriate word—on the face of the Bill and another by means of regulation. Therefore, an element of gratitude is obviously appropriate, and I am delighted to record it.
  I and others have argued that many students come to this country to undertake genuine courses of study and stay for the length of their courses. However, other students come to this country and, for whatever reason, do not complete their courses. In some cases, there are suspicions from the outset that that might occur. I accept
  52
  the Minister's explanation that that is a slightly more difficult case. In view of his comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 not moved.]
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
  ("() Any regulations made under this section shall prescribe the time within which any application is to be processed and prescribe that any fee paid is to be refunded if the application to which it relates is not dealt with in the prescribed time.").
  The noble Lord said: This side of the Committee is traditionally thought to be more in favour of offering financial incentives than the other side. This amendment seeks to ensure that, if the Home Office takes too long to process an application, any fee that has been paid is refunded. We believe that that would help to concentrate the minds of Home Office officers and would ensure that these matters are dealt with speedily—a point that is emphasised constantly by Ministers.
  This amendment was suggested to us by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, so it has very good parentage. Apart from any prejudices that might be thought to lie with us in seeking to introduce financial incentives, I believe that the matter is well worth considering. I beg to move.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: The question of expediency—how quickly the applications can be processed—goes to the heart of the Government's "fairer and faster" proposals. Therefore, I suppose that this is an appropriate moment to ask the Minister some questions that pick up on his remarks to the Committee a few moments ago, which we all welcome.
  If the amendment were successful, can the Minister tell us what number of cases would be likely to fall outside the times prescribed in the White Paper and draft process manuals of two months for an initial decision and six months for completion of the appeal stage? If this amendment were successful, what would it cost the Exchequer should the number of appeals currently failing to meet those targets continue not to meet those targets?
  Would the Minister also be good enough to say something about the ways in which the department is trying to speed up the process with practical measures? I understand that there has been a problem with the scanning-in of information onto the computer systems in the department. It is not scheduled to begin until late this year and will take some years to implement. Can he tell us whether that process is now under way and what kind of timetable he is placing on it?
  Furthermore, will he respond to a point made by the Immigration Appeals Appellate Authority; namely, that "one-stop" appeals will take longer to hear than do asylum appeals in their current form? If that is the case, can he tell the Committee what additional time will be taken over the norms that have applied so far? At Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed concern that the 300 or more staff who will be required to implement the voucher system might better be used

  53
  to speed up this process. If it is true that they could handle up to around 50,000 applications a year, would not that act as a far better deterrent to many people seeking to come to the United Kingdom if they thought their appeal would be dealt with much more rapidly than if they thought they had the chance to come here and stay for quite a long time until the necessary procedures had been gone through?
  I know that the medical foundation for those who have suffered from torture has stated,
  "We have become accustomed, although not hardened, to the exchanges of wry smiles when the issue of the two and six-month time limits are raised in official meetings and to the mocking laughter when they are discussed in other fora".
  It is certainly the foundation's view and that of others who have looked at the issues that the harshness of the support proposals contained elsewhere in the Bill has been justified only on the basis that the process will be speeded up and that more expeditious arrangements will be put in place. In that respect, the amendment, which could be regarded as an opportunity to probe the Government on these questions, is a welcome one and is helpful to the Committee.
  Lord Avebury: As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has again raised the question of timing, perhaps I may repeat a question that I put to the Minister at Second Reading concerning the delivery of the casework system, which is being provided by Siemens and on which, as the Committee will be aware, there have been considerable delays. It had been said that the system would be delivered for preliminary tests by IND on 15th June and that it would be operational in April 2000. I asked the Minister whether the testing had indeed begun on 15th June. That would be a good way to tell whether the commissioning date of April 2000 is likely to be met. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can deal with that point.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I wish to commend the amendment and to say how strongly we support it. It is a most enjoyable amendment. It has the quality of bringing forward joined-up government, competitive government, modern government, efficient government and government responsive to the customer. Those are all principles which I believe Her Majesty's Government hold deeply dear.
  I hope the Government will give the amendment careful consideration. The prescribed time gives them a certain amount of flexibility as to the objectives that they set. It is of course right and proper that government departments should deliver within the prescribed times that they themselves set. There is the great attraction of setting a substantial incentive to Home Office civil servants to complete their work on time, and for Ministers to do the same thing. Finally, the amendment has the advantage of being compassionate, because it will enable those affected to be dealt with quickly, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. have implied.
  54
  I commend both noble Lords on the Conservative Benches on the far-sighted vision of this amendment and I hope that it will appeal to the Minister.
  Lord Hylton: At this early stage of the Bill. perhaps I may re-emphasise a point that I was trying to make at Second Reading that speed, although desirable, is not the only element that is necessary. We also expect a high quality of decisions in all asylum and immigration matters. If that can be achieved—I hope that it will be—it will be bound to reduce the number of appeals and thus the overall time taken. I hope that can be taken on board.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may make a preparatory remark. Clause 4 concerns in-country applications for leave to remain on the basis of variation of leave to enter. It does not deal with asylum seekers. I have undertaken to exclude from the clause applications for leave from asylum seekers. Therefore, this clause will not affect process times for asylum applicants, whether in-country or at port. I suspect that that is what the pertinent questions of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on that other aspect were aimed at. The noble Lord is nodding helpfully. Perhaps I may therefore pass on his well-judged questions because they do not deal with this part of the Bill.
  The amendment would require the refund of fees if particular applications were not determined within a period to be prescribed. I fully accept that the service of the Immigration and Nationality Department at Croydon is providing just now is less good than it ought to be, to put it quite mildly. Nevertheless, many callers to the public caller unit still have their applications determined on the day that they make them. The Government and the Home Office have a commitment to public service and we are determined that the service levels in Croydon and Liverpool will improve. But that will take a little time.
  I do not believe, in any event, that it is appropriate for service levels of this nature to be set out in legislation. There could be any number of reasons beyond the control of the Home Office affecting turnaround times, including, for example, the time taken by applicants to respond to inquiries. When services tandards are to be published, this should be done administratively and in a way in which they can be amended quickly if required.
  Even when a service standard is set, it does not follow that failure to meet the standard means that the full fee should be refunded. That does not happen in the private sector and there is no reason why it should happen in the public sector. Even when private sector undertakings provide compensation for poor service delivery, it falls far short of the price paid by the customer.
  The essential reason for this clause is to reduce the costs which currently fall on the Exchequer. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, would either reduce receipts to the Exchequer or increase the fees which other applicants have to pay. I have no doubt that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee would wish to give every encouragement to IND to process cases more quickly. My right honourable friend in

  55
  another place fully supports that. But I do not believe that this amendment would assist. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Russell: Perhaps the Minister will take this point on board. Were the amendment in place, I would have to write to his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, and his honourable friend, Mr O'Brien, a good many fewer letters than I do at present. Although those letters are processed with quite exemplary expedition, generosity and success, it might be nice for all of us if we could be spared the trouble.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I should be interested in the response that the noble Earl receives to his letters. If he always has success, he will encourage a great many more letters.
  Earl Russell: I did not say "always".
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: It sounded rather like that. However, be that as it may, in the light of the earlier agreement to alter the Bill, under this amendment we are in danger of giving the Home Office an incentive to process asylum seekers more slowly in order to speed up those covered by the amendment, which of course is not what we would wish to do. The noble and learned Lord made some good points in the sense of wishing to speed up the process, which is what we are trying to achieve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (6).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Members of missions other than diplomatic agents]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 4, line 23, leave out from ("member") to end of line 24.
  The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment probing the meaning of the clause. Under Clause 5, a member of a diplomatic mission is rightly exempt from immigration control. However, the wording of the Bill implies that if someone is offered such a post but ceased to be a member of the mission before taking it up, he would still be exempt from immigration control. If he is offered a post but ceases to be a member of the mission after taking it up, he ceases to be exempt. Perhaps we are not reading the Bill correctly, but the situation seems unclear. However, on the face of it, that is what is stated and I doubt whether the Government intend it to state that and it is not what it should state. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As ever, the noble Lord is spot on the point. Perhaps I may explain what we are trying to do. Clause 5 is intended to prevent foreign nationals taking a job in a diplomatic mission in an attempt to evade immigration control.
  Before 1988 any foreign national who worked at a diplomatic mission, regardless of immigration status prior to being engaged, was exempt from immigration
  56
  control. However, it was discovered that people subject to enforcement action were using such employment to benefit from exemption from control and thus avoid being removed from the UK.
  Section 8(3A) of the 1971 Act was introduced to allow for locally engaged staff—that is, any foreign national offered a position at a diplomatic mission here while in the UK—to remain subject to immigration control. The current wording of that section means that foreign nationals already in the United Kingdom who are offered a job in a diplomatic mission remain subject to control so long as they remain in this country. However, if they travel abroad and then return to the UK, the current drafting of Section 8(3A) means that they become exempt simply because they have entered the United Kingdom as a member of a diplomatic mission. This means that once again any person attempting to avoid removal could do so quite easily. In other words, one is subject to immigration control; one joins a diplomatic mission, still subject to control; one goes abroad on a day trip to France; and on return one has sprung free from all immigration control.
  Clause 5 closes the loophole by providing exemption only if the person was resident outside the United Kingdom, and was not present in the United Kingdom, when offered his post. Furthermore, the exemption will be lost if the person concerned ceases to be a member of the mission after taking up the post, unless he is re-employed under circumstances which again satisfy the requirements of the clause.
  The effect of subsection 3A(b) is to prevent abuse when a person leaves his exempt employment and is then locally engaged as a member of the same mission. This subsection prevents such an individual from relying on a previous exempt status, to which he is no longer entitled, to evade immigration control. The effect of Amendment No. 19 would be to remove this second requirement, which obviously defeats the object of the clause.
  In the light of my explanation, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall study carefully what the noble and learned Lord said. It sounded sensible enough and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Persons ceasing to be exempt]:
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Removal of certain persons unlawfully in the United Kingdom]:
  Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 20A:
  Page 5, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() Directions may not be given under subsection (1) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that all relevant factors listed in the immigration rules have been considered.").
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 20A is to ensure that all a person's personal circumstances, as well as his immigration status, are fully considered before an order for removal is made. Under the current immigration rules, the Secretary of State must consider all a person's circumstances before making a decision to make a deportation order. These circumstances include factors such as age; length of residence; connections with the United Kingdom; domestic circumstances; personal history; compassionate circumstances; and representations received on a person's behalf. Those facts are then balanced against the public interest to be served in deporting a person.
  They do not have to be considered where someone is to be removed as an illegal entrant under current legislation. To preserve the consideration where someone is to be removed for being in breach of the condition of stay will make the proposed changes less harsh and less open to obvious injustice. In order properly to achieve that, the changes should also include a review of the Secretary of State's discretion in such cases other than when a person is to be removed as an illegal entrant. I beg to move.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My noble friend Lord Dholakia has touched on the nub of the amendment. However, some members of the Committee might not be aware that as recently as 1988—if that is recent in legislative terms—the seven-year rule covered by the amendment was introduced. Prior to that, after the 1971 Act brought in the regime of immigration law, there was no such limitation. All persons subject to a deportation order had a right of appeal to the adjudicator, to the independent appellate authority, which was an enormous safeguard and of enormous value to the whole process of deportation, given the grave step which that is to those affected. With the 1971 regime came the merits rules referred to by my noble friend Lord Dholakia.
  In 1988, that considerable protection for those being deported was massively reduced by saying that only those whose last leave to enter was more than seven years ago could make such an independent appeal to the adjudicator. It is well to remember that when that restriction on the rights of those being deported was imposed by the previous government, the present Government were extremely forceful—nay, vocal—in resisting the limit on appeal which that represented. Those of us on these Benches do not understand why the Government believe it necessary at this time to take away that right altogether. The clause does not protect so-called illegal immigrants—those who practice deception and so forth—but it takes away that crucial right in a relatively small number of cases where by definition those concerned have established a way of life here, often with families and in good jobs.
  We believe that the Government should think again either by accepting the amendment or, as I would suggest, by removing the clause altogether because it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What is more, it is a sledgehammer that may damage the Government. It is unsafe to leave to an immigration officer the sole decision over such a crucial matter for families or
  58
  individuals who have been here for at least seven years. As the current case of a gentleman in the City shows. the Government risk incurring extreme public displeasure about the perceived—or real—injustice of the circumstances.
  I am sure that we are not alone in being strongly lobbied on the issue by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Justice and the Law Society. The Government should think again and at least allow the amendment. Deportations resulting from an unfair or unwise decision of an immigration officer can cause considerable ill will and hardship. Given the importance of the matter, there should be a right of appeal to an independent adjudicator who can sit back and look at all the circumstances. Like all other judges of merit, immigration officers will make mistakes sometimes. In those cases, the adjudicator would say, "This must not pass", and would allow an appeal.
  Earl Russell: My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury is correct to link Amendment No. 20A with Amendment No. 22. The length of time that somebody has been here is a material circumstance that can reasonably be taken into account when deciding whether to enforce a deportation order. There is a necessary link between those matters.
  Deportation is a stringent power. It also entails considerable costs to public funds. If public funds are to be prudently managed, the power should not be employed with too much freedom. I am not certain how wide the powers of deportation conferred by Clause 8 are. We have to probe that a little to understand the need for the amendment. Under Clause 8(1)(b), somebody may be deported if,
  "he has obtained leave to remain by deception".
  I understand the concern about deception in immigration law. In asylum law, it is a different matter and often people can operate only by deception.
  If somebody obtained leave to remain by deception as a student on a course that they did not want to follow and then claimed asylum very shortly afterwards, would they come within the operation of Clause 8 in such a way that their asylum claim could not be heard'? That would be a material circumstance. It would be unfortunate if that were the effect of the clause. That would introduce a further draconian power in a form in which not many people might notice it.
  I wonder whether it does this country quite as much harm as is supposed to have a few people in it, such as the gentleman from the City whom my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury mentioned, whose reasons for being here may be in some ways irregular, but who are doing no harm to this country and are living as virtuous citizens and making a considerable contribution to the country's welfare. I wonder whether the provisions are a proportionate use of government powers.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I intend to speak on the clause-stand-part Motion rather than on the amendments in particular, but I should like to know whether the provisions of Amendment No. 22, which relates to people who have been here for seven years or

  59
  more, would include those who had managed to extend their time to seven years by appeal after appeal and had finally exhausted all their appeals.
  The Earl of Sandwich: As I understand it, it has been Labour Party policy that all asylum seekers have a proper right of appeal. In the Special Standing Committee in another place the junior Minister appeared to give a commitment that there would be changes in immigration rules to that effect. I refer to cols. 584 and 585 of the relevant Hansard. On the sledgehammer theory, has not the chief adjudicator said that the measure will cause no more than a negligible reduction in the backlog?
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall leave it to the Minister to respond on the main points in the amendments. New Labour seems to have changed its mind in our direction since the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. With all the enthusiasm of converts, the Government have gone a little further. I find it difficult to object to that in principle, but I shall be interested to hear the Minster's response to the main points.
  I should like to say a word or two about Amendment No. 25, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Astor, which is intended to ensure that the clause does not inadvertently introduce retrospective invalidation of expired leave. I hope that it is only a drafting error or an error on my part in reading the clause and trying to fathom its meaning. We all dislike retrospective legislation. However, without the amendment, the clause could be used retrospectively. I understand that the point was raised in Committee in another place, but the Minister did not have an opportunity to respond because of the large number of points being made at the time. It is a valid point, if small in comparison with the main thrust of the amendments.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: As some link has sensibly been made between Amendment No. 20 and the subsequent amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I address Amendment No. 22 briefly.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps the noble Baroness has not realised that they are linked on the groupings list.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: On my list, Amendment No. 20 stands on its own, followed by Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and the others.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 20 was not moved. The noble Baroness is talking about Amendment No. 20A.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Amendment No. 20A has now been brought into the discussion on Amendment No. 22.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: It might be helpful if I recite what is in the group. It comprises Amendments Nos. 20A, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 26A.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise. My list is approximately one and a half hours out of date and does not include Amendment No. 20A in that group.
  60
  I reinforce what my noble friends Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Russell have said about those who have been here for seven years or more. I ask the Government carefully to consider excluding those who have been here for seven years or more from the possibility of being deported because their position when they came to this country was not fully regular.
  There are two arguments for that. First, the Government have a large backlog to deal with and it would be sensible to deal with some cases relatively rapidly. The second reason is perhaps much more important; that is, that it seems to me probable that if the Government engage in a fairly wide-scale deportation of people who have been here for more than seven years, there will be a great strain on relations within that community. Some years ago, in 1988, the right of appeal for those who had been living here for less than seven years was removed. Alun Michael said that it would harm people who had humanitarian reasons for wanting to remain in the UK. Those people may have families here; they may have been here for many years and have no links overseas; or they may be doing valuable jobs in the community.
  The Minister will be aware that on several occasions when people who have been resident in this country for many years have been identified for deportation, they have been often followed by pleas from the community to make an exception in those cases. In some instances their children have been largely educated in this country; their friends, their comrades and associates are all here. In other cases, the parents themselves have become crucial and helpful members of the community. In the minds of many communities no clear distinction will be made between those who happen to be Britons of either Caribbean or Asian origin, and those who have been here for long enough to seem to be a full and stable part of the community. I am not arguing that people who deliberately break immigration rules should be treated in any particularly kindly fashion. However, I believe that those who came a long time ago, who were allowed into this country and who then settled down and in some cases are "aware overstayers" have, in a sense, established their bona fides partly by the contribution which they have made to this country.
  In many cases, the cruellest part would be the inclusion of family members in any act of deportation. In some cases, those family members have in no way been responsible for any aberration in terms of immigration rules. They may be under the age of 16 and therefore legally have no responsibility for the situation. In some cases, they may be spouses who have no relationship at all to the country to which they are being deported. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look carefully at this amendment, which would exclude from the provisions for deportation people who have stayed more than seven years.
  Referring back to Clause 7, perhaps I may simply add that a good deal depends on the length of time which would be given under Clause 7. One of our concerns is

  61
  that a relatively short length of time would be difficult to publicise. People may be unaware of their rights and of the short interim period.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I shall speak to a matter which may be slightly peripheral to it, but which nevertheless seems to me to be at the heart of Clause 8; that is, the seriousness of the British Government in intending to remove from the United Kingdom illegal immigrants or others who should not be here.
  Perhaps I may tell a story to make my point. Some years ago I set up an exchange of young people between my diocese and the two dioceses in Sri Lanka. Eight young people from Sri Lanka came to Yorkshire and spent a month there. At the end of that period they moved down to London before finally flying back from Heathrow. On the last night, one of the eight, who was a Tamil, left the hotel at which the group was staying and did not return. He did not turn up for his flight. He was quite clearly an illegal immigrant, and it seemed to us that from the moment that he became part of the group he had always intended to take that step.
  I was placed in a position of considerable embarrassment. The Minister concerned wrote to me with a sharp rebuke in the light of the fact that I had guaranteed that they would return. Some months later, I found the address of this person. I passed the address to the Home Office Minister concerned. I was surprised then to find that no action was taken. Removal did not in fact take place, although the address was known and the circumstances were perfectly clear.
  When I asked why that was, the answer I received from a number of people was simple: "It is not that we want to remove all such people; it is simply that we want the power to remove in order to make it clear that such people are not welcome and to send the message that they should not attempt such action". Therefore, I ask how serious the Government are in the implementation of Clause 8.
  By contrast to that story, if we take the circumstances of someone in the position outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, it seems to me that, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, there is a total difference between the two sets of circumstance. By whatever means a person has managed to remain here for seven years, it is undoubtedly the case that strong links are built up in the local community. There may be family links and young people who are being educated. For all sorts of reasons, there may be a presumption that such a person has, in some way or another, become part of the community. It therefore seems to me to be right that under the provisions of Clause 8, it should not be possible to remove summarily a person in those circumstances who has been here for more than seven years.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I remind the Committee that we are dealing with Amendments Nos. 20A, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 26A.
  62
  I understand that a number of concerns have been expressed. I believe that some of them may have been based on a misunderstanding and a misapprehension of, first, what happens now, and, secondly, what is intended here.
  I shall deal with the amendments in what seems to be a sensible order. First, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his explanation. During the discussions in Committee in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave an undertaking that the immigration rules would be amended to specify that those factors which are currently taken into account when deciding whether or not to make a deportation order would have to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to remove someone under the powers contained in Clause 8. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would require only that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that that has in fact been done. If the requirements of the immigration rules have not been complied with, any decision to remove is not lawful. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, may have achieved his purpose in my reiterating that undertaking given in another place. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, having achieved his objective, will accept my reassurance that his amendment would not add any additional safeguards.
  Looking ahead, I also hope that I may say at this stage that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 8, is not necessary for the same reason.
  The first of the amendments in my name relates to Clause 7, which we considered earlier. It makes provision for a scheme under which someone who has overstayed their limited leave to enter or remain will be able to regularise immigration status by applying for leave to remain. Successful applicants will be granted leave. Unsuccessful applicants will retain their current appeal rights against a decision to deport.
  I turn to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Clause 7 specifies that the regularisation period must be not less than three months, and that Clause 8 comes into force on the day after it ends. To take the noble Baroness's point further, an application can be made at any time during that period. That means that there will almost certainly be some cases which will not have been decided when the regularisation period ends and Clause 8 comes into force.
  Subsection (2) of Clause 8 protects overstayers who have applied under the scheme from administrative removal under the new powers contained in subsection (1). As currently drafted, the clause suggests that that protection will last only as long as the application remains outstanding. Once an application has been decided, anyone whose application has been refused will be liable to removal as an overstayer if Clause 8 is enforced at that stage. That is not what was intended. Paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 14 makes it clear that the deportation procedure and the right of appeal will continue to operate for those whose applications under Clause 7 are unsuccessful. When someone applies

  63
  under the Clause 7 arrangements, the exception of removal under Clause 8 powers continues beyond the initial decision and through the hearing of any appeal. Someone whose appeal is dismissed will then be deported rather than removed. Those who choose not to exercise their preserved right of appeal will also be deported.
  The amendment tabled in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, seeks to amend Clause 8(2), I believe to preserve what she would see as the more generous right of appeal against deportation currently enjoyed by someone who last entered the United Kingdom more than seven years before the date of a decision to make a deportation against him.
  This amendment will not achieve that. That would require further amendments preserving Sections 3(5)(a) and 3(5)(aa) of the 1971 Act and Sections 15 and 17 of that Act. Some provision would need to be made so that a person who entered with leave more than seven years before commencement and who then had a comprehensive one-stop appeal under Part IV of the Bill (at which the issue of removal was considered) would then get a further right of appeal against the decision to make a deportation order.
  At present, we are considering Amendment No. 22 which, in isolation, would mean that there would be no power under immigration law to remove from the United Kingdom someone who had entered more than seven years before the commencement of the Bill except on conducive grounds or following a court recommendation that they should be deported. The Bill, as drafted, repeals the present powers under which overstayers are removed. Accepting Amendment No. 22 would mean that the new powers in Clause 8 could not be used against them either.
  I cannot accept the amendments, therefore. I repeat: the effect of Clause 7, taken with paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 14, is that the present rights of appeal against deportation are preserved for any overstayer who applies for leave to remain under the arrangements provided for by Clause 7. We specifically introduced that provision because the Secretary of State was responding to concerns in the course of discussions in another place. We see them as sufficient safeguards. As I have said, if someone has overstayed and wants to preserve his present right of appeal against deportation, he needs to apply under the Clause 7 arrangements.
  I turn to one or two specific matters. The right reverend Prelate asked how serious we are about the removal of those who have no claim to remain here. We try to deal with every claim according to its individual circumstances. I have already indicated that we shall be considering the immigration rules in the general context of the Bill.
  I repeat that we shall consider the circumstances of an individual before removal under Clause 8, as we do at present before deportation and as we do with illegal entrants, even though there is no requirement under the rules. The relevant rule is Rule 364 of the immigration rules. That will be amended to cover those who will be
  64
  caught by Clause 8. The rule requires that factors such as age, length of residence, and so on, must be taken into account.
  A person will always have an in-country right of appeal by virtue of Clauses 55 and 59. Perhaps I may just touch on that point briefly as it is one about which the noble Earl asked me earlier. Clause 55 provides that acts made unlawful by Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 found the basis of an appeal; I put this generally. Clause 59 provides that:
  "A person who is refused leave to enter the United Kingdom under the 1971 Act may appeal against the refusal to an adjudicator on the ground that his removal in consequence of the refusal would be contrary to the Convention".
  I anticipate the question from the noble Earl about the exact convention to which I am at present referring. Clause 59(6) makes particular reference to,
  "the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention",
  so those safeguards still remain.
  As noble Lords will see from the side rubric, Clause 8 deals with removal, not deportation. I repeat that a person who claims asylum will always have an in-country right of appeal.
  I should focus on another particular question before I continue further with my own amendments. The noble Earl asked about a student who may obtain leave by deception. A student who obtains leave by deception and then makes a claim for asylum will still have his asylum claim considered, and will have a right of appeal to an adjudicator if he fails. I hope that it was helpful to say that. I quite understand that if one is looking at Clause 8, it is perhaps easy to overlook the difference between "removal" and "deportation".
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 tabled in my name. One cannot work without the other, and I shall, if I may, deal with them together. Under Clause 8, an immigration officer will have the power to direct that someone should be removed from the United Kingdom. However, on removal, that person will not go on foot, but by some form of transport. We concluded that it would be desirable to make provision on the face of the Bill for directions to be given to those classes of people who are likely to be involved in effecting the removals I described.
  I shall proceed in numerical order. Amendment No. 25 is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. The wording of the subsection which this amendment seeks to amend mirrors that of the deportation provisions in Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act which currently apply to these cases and which will continue to apply to cases for which deportation is being retained.
  The wording has not presented any difficulties in the past. I do not believe it is likely to do so in the future. Therefore, we do not believe that Amendment No. 25 is necessary. As presently drafted, directions given under this section for a person's removal invalidate any leave that was given before the directions were given and any given while the removal directions are in force. Thus, if the family member of someone who is to be removed makes an application for further leave to remain as a

  65
  student, then has directions given for removal on "family member" grounds and then, after that, because the relationship has not been picked up by the person dealing with the student application or because it was not picked up quickly enough and the application is granted, the effect of subsection (8) is that the subsequent grant of leave is invalidated.
  Amendment No. 25 would limit the effect of subsection (8) to any leave which is extant at the time when removal directions are given. As far as leave given before removal directions is concerned, this is not a problem, but leave which has not yet been granted at the time the removal directions are given is not "extant leave"; it is future leave. Adding the word inserted by Amendment No. 25 would mean that any leave granted in the circumstances I have described would not be invalidated, and we would be in the illogical position of removing—or trying to remove—someone who had valid leave to be here.
  The last amendment in this grouping is Amendment No. 26 tabled in my name. Clause 8 makes provision for the removal of various categories of person, all of whom, when they originally arrived at the port or airport, qualified for and were granted leave to enter. At the moment, when those persons are removed, the cost is borne by the Secretary of State. The amendment makes clear, on the face of the Bill, that that will continue to be the case in future.
  There was a necessity to answer in a little more detail than is perhaps always necessary. I recognise that there may still he questions outstanding. I mentioned, with reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that I was always ready for a meeting. I have been reminded that a meeting has already been arranged for Thursday of this week. If any noble Lords are presently dissatisfied or are still concerned, I am more than happy to look again at the points of detail. However, I believe that some of the points of detail have alarmed people because the distinction has not always been drawn in the mind between the Clause 8 arrangements and what is presently "deportation".
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Before the noble Lord sits down, in the interests of making the Bill clear to the meanest of intelligence, I wonder whether he could explain to this particular person of mean intelligence the practical difference between "deportation" and "removal".
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. It still means that one would have to leave the jurisdiction. We propose, under Clauses 7 and 8, that those who have been in this country a long time in the circumstances specified can apply, should they wish, by virtue of Clause 7, to have the arrangements regularised. If those arrangements are not regularised, there can be an administrative removal. So, we shall have a scheme of administrative removal, but I stress that those in the circumstances posited by the noble Earl retain their rights to appeal.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response to Amendment No. 22. I sometimes understand better than I usually do why
  66
  people in his profession are so highly paid; it takes an extraordinarily brilliant mind to grasp some of the language which he used in response. I shall have to ponder it further for much longer than he requires. However, if I have interpreted it rightly, we shall carefully consider the possibility of putting in an amendment at Report which more satisfactorily meets the problems that he has rightly outlined.
  Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. He does not normally give anything at all, but makes you feel that you have scored a victory; and that seems to be the case here. I shall look at Hansard to see whether I can tie him up at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 20A.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 21
  Page 5, line 28, leave out ("which has not been determined").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
  Page 5, line 40, leave out ("given").
  Page 5, line 40, after ("section") insert ("—
  () may be given only to persons falling within a prescribed class;").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 6, line 3, at end insert—
  ("() The costs of complying with a direction given under this section (so far as reasonably incurred) must be met by the Secretary of State.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, whether Clause 8 (as amended) stand part of the Bill.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I hesitate to use the word "bamboozle" but some of the explanations come close to the use of that word. For example, the right reverend Prelate asked about the difference between administrative removal and deportation. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, might agree that in common parlance "there ain't no difference"; if you are chucked out of the country, it does not matter whether it is called deportation or administrative removal; it comes to the same grievous outcome.
  In all its complexity there is one simple unrelieved truth about the change that is being made, and that is that whereas at present those who have been here for more than seven years had a right of independent appeal, that right is removed, and the only right that replaces it is for those who make their appeal within six months of their overstay. Many noble Lords will understand that while that sounds fine and dandy, the reality

  67
  for immigrants and the extraordinarily unsatisfactory circumstances in which many of them find themselves, is that they will not be able to exercise that right of appeal within that time. There will be very many hard and unfair cases. I remain dissatisfied and disappointed that the Government appear to be making no concession on the central point.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My views on Clause 8 differ from those of the noble Lord. The explanatory notes state:
  "In parallel with the reform of the immigration and asylum appeals system, the White Paper announced that in future, anyone who had been lawfully in the United Kingdom but who no longer had any entitlement to remain would normally be subject to administrative removal rather than deportation."
  I understood that administrative removal was a fairly simple matter and that it did not require a court procedure and subsequent deportation. Can the Minister say whether I am correct in that view?
  I have received a letter from the Minister which appeared to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. It dealt with the issue of how people who have been here for a long time might miss out on their right of appeal. I understood the Minister to be saying that there would be a well-publicised time period given to people who had been here longer in which they could appeal. The answer in the letter was very satisfactory, and Clause 7 does cover that point, but I would welcome clarification.
  My concern about Clause 8 is that there seemed to be some confusion in the debate on the recent amendments. Clause 8 does not relate specifically to asylum seekers because they already have rights of appeal. Various local authorities have asked me to inquire about the people who have gone through every stage of every appeal and yet are still being funded by the local authorities. Those authorities are reimbursed by the Government at a different rate, and therefore the council tax payers are paying for it. Many of these people are still occupying council accommodation that is desperately needed for other new applicants.
  I do not understand where those people fit in, especially those who have been through all the appeal procedures, possibly over many years. That is why I asked the following question, which the Minister did not answer. If someone has been here for eight or 10 years over the seven year period referred to in Amendment No. 22, would that cover them, even though their appeals had failed and they had been adjudged not to be entitled to remain in this country? Are those people classified as overstayers? Why are the Government not addressing those circumstances?
  Lord Renton: I have listened patiently to the discussions on Clauses 7 and 8. I am very surprised that the noble Lord should wish to omit Clause 8.
  We should bear in mind that in the 12 months ending 31st May, over 80,000 people have been granted leave to remain here as immigrants or been granted asylum. The exact figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in answer to a question I
  68
  tabled for written answer, provided the detail: 67,900 have been granted indefinite leave to remain; those recognised as refugees and granted asylum were 5,560; those who were refused asylum but granted exceptional leave to remain were 3,220; and then there was a backlog of 3,910. That is a total of over 80,000 people in 12 months.
  I ask the noble Lords, whom I respect for their humanitarian and Christian aims that we all share, to bear in mind that we owe it to the people already in this country to be very careful about this matter. The more people we have here, the more unemployment and poverty there will be. The more people we have here, the lower will be the average standard of living, and the greater strain on our social services and greater congestion in urban areas.
  We should not overlook those facts when we are debating these matters. Bearing those factors in mind, I hope that Clause 8 will be allowed to stand as part of the Bill. I could make the same speech in relation to the next two clauses but do not propose to do so.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for giving way. With the greatest possible respect to him—I have the highest admiration for him—does he not accept that many of those who receive asylum in this country, far from being people who finish up in the inner cities, are among the highly intelligent members of our community? Far from being a drain on our economic resources, they will prove to be considerable assets to them.
  Lord Renton: That is a matter of opinion and must vary from person to person. But we know that many of those who come to this country cannot even speak our language.
  The world has become an even more distressing place for people to live and the pressures upon the Government of this country, whatever their complexion, to receive more asylum seekers has grown and may continue to grow. But our first duty is to the people of this country. We must use a sensible discretion in that regard. The Government should be supported in their efforts to amend the law in ways which achieve justice and we must not press them to relax the law to such an extent that people—for example, those covered by Clauses 7 and 8—are allowed in when they perhaps should not be.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, reminded us of our first duty, but it is not our only duty. We have a duty to ensure that whatever legal arrangements we introduce are fair and do not discriminate.
  We also have a duty to reflect on the overall contribution which immigrants and asylum seekers have made and continue to make to this country over many generations. Though it is true that some people will abuse the system, that is also true of our nationals. To make too much of this argument could almost lead to the scapegoating of immigrants and asylum seekers. Having represented an inner city community for 25 years at one level or another, I was conscious of the positive

  69
  contribution which many immigrants and asylum seekers made to that community, not least in the creation of employment for many of our nationals. It is also interesting that the last time I looked, more people left the United Kingdom than came into it. So we should not over-exaggerate this point. It could lead to some people taking out of context the comments made quite rightly by the noble Lord in Committee, and using them against those communities.
  Lord Renton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. If we take in 80,000 in l2 months, that is a generous absorption of people who are said to be suffering and who come to this country. It is a generous absorption on the part of the Government and the people of this country.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: My point is that more people leave this country in the course of a year than come here. In the context of the many millions of people living in this country, we should see the contribution that immigrants and asylum seekers have made in the overall pattern of things. We cannot put shutters up around our nation. Indeed, if others put up shutters to prevent British nationals from settling or moving elsewhere, it would lead to a frustrated and claustrophobic world.
  The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, put clown a marker not to remove Clause 8, but to give us the opportunity to debate whether or not it should stand part of the Bill in its present form. If the amendments which he and his noble friends have been moving to this clause are accepted at Report stage, no doubt the clause will remain in the Bill.
  The noble Lord is right to remind us that there are problems with the clause and I hope that when the Minister replies he will address some of those problems, not least the discriminatory nature of the appeals procedure. As I understand it, under Clause 55 the one-stop arrangements that will be made available to others will not be made available to overstayers. It will be far better if in the legislation we have one coherent set of criteria so that those who are not legitimately in this country may be seen to be dealt with fairly and justly under the arrangements.
  I hope also that we will not discount the arguments about the need to show some sense of understanding of the individual circumstances of those who will be applying under the appeals procedure. Whether people are removed abruptly, arbitrarily, or whether they are removed after a relatively short procedure being invoked, if they have been here for more than seven years they will have many familial ties. They will have many ties connected with personal history which should be properly placed upon the record and properly adjudicated upon before any decisions are made on that person's behalf.
  I will be interested to hear from the Minister when he replies to this debate how many people he estimates will he caught by the new arrangements. Are we dealing with hundreds of thousands, 80,000—the figure the noble Lord introduced into the debate a few minutes ago—hundreds of people or just handfuls of people? It would
  70
  help us to get some appreciation of the numbers involved. If those numbers are small, it may be that a better way of dealing with this issue is through some form of amnesty rather than grinding the whole process once again to a halt, over-exaggerating the problem and then not being able to deal with the cases which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, reminded us are still in the system and which still need to he dealt with expeditiously.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I have some sympathy with the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. What underlies this issue is whether we have a reputation for equitable and fair dealing when it comes to difficult matters. We have a situation where most people, whether or not they are ultimately found to be entitled to be here, are faced with a real dilemma. We need to be compassionate in the way in which we deal with people who face such a situation, even those who ultimately fail to satisfy the requirements of the law. That is the reputation of this country. When we are dealing with such situations it is folly to act capriciously.
  That reputation has not always existed. I make a great generalisation. My grandparents and those who came to this country with them were not always treated with that degree of equity and fair dealing. The very first Committee in which I was involved was the asylum Bill of 1970. I looked up the debates that took place in 1905. There was not a reputation for fair dealing at that time. Some people sought to take advantage of the situation in which these people found themselves. They whipped up prejudice and so forth.
  I know the noble Lord, Lord Renton, extremely well. I hope that he shares the view that everybody is entitled, in the consideration of the case that they seek to present, to a measure of understanding about that; and that they should have every opportunity to present that case. He is not there to scapegoat people. He is not there to take advantage of a situation by a capricious government. Serious arguments are being presented to the Committee as we deal with this issue of principle.
  When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, my overwhelming view was that he would rather that asylum seekers do not come at all. That is to disregard the individual cases of a large number of people. They may not necessarily satisfy the requirement of the law, but it would be unjust to say that they have no right to come here and to act towards them with that degree of prejudice that I know the noble Lord would not want to adopt in relation to the application of the law in general—a law of whose reputation he is very jealous, having been involved in it for so long and served it with such distinction.
  7 p.m.
  Earl Russell: We were bound to raise this general issue at some stage and I am most grateful to the tight reverend Prelate for doing so. I agree with everything that he said.
  There is strong disagreement on this matter. I am sorry to dismay the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with whom I often agree with great passion, but this does not

  71
  happen to be one of those occasions. He said that it was a matter of opinion whether refugees as a community tend to be of above-average ability. I am not sure that is so. A large body of opinion suggests that in escaping from a persecuting regime, one observes the survival of the fittest.
  It was my privilege when I was in the United States to serve in a department, 25 per cent of whose members were refugees from Hitler. Those people were of extraordinary ability. The United States was extremely lucky to have them; so was my university and my department.
  There is a considerable body of evidence—some of it addressed by my former tutor, Professor John Roberts, in his History of the World—that some of the most successful civilisations have been those that had within them a considerable mixture of races and cultures. The United States is an outstanding example. Our country is also an example, although not to the same extent. I would be sorry if it ceased to be so.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, introduced the concept of "our own people". Especially in this partly hereditary House, that is a difficult concept. A small proportion of hereditary peers are hereditary English. Some of them came over with William the Conqueror. My own ancestors came in 1393 from Gascony. My first known ancestor was a Stephen Gascoigne, alias Russell. I admit to being relieved that I am not called Gascoigne. My ancestors left Bordeaux believing that it was about to be sold out by the English at the next peace treaty—a Hong Kong situation. They happened to be 60 years ahead of the game, but their foresight was correct.
  When we think about who actually are "our own people", one realises that it is not as simple as one might think. Many of us have ancestors who arrived here unable to speak our language, just like the people mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. That is no evidence of ability. It is evidence of upbringing. Many of our most distinguished people arrived here unable to speak our language. They have certainly made up for it since.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, recalled us to the real purpose of the Bill. We are dealing with individual applications. Justice is blind, so the question of whether or not an applicant's claim is just does not depend on our views on the general question. I testify to those views because I hold them with pride and conviction, but were they all wrong, the blindness of justice would remain a necessity—and ultimately our views would not be material to what the Bill should say.
  Lord Renton: Before the noble Earl sits down, I have been trying to follow his argument. At one stage he seemed to be indicating that there should be no limit on the numbers, whatever the increase in the demand for immigration may be. Is the noble Earl saying that anyone should be allowed to come here as of right?
  Earl Russell: No. I am saying the same as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. If one compares the number of people who enter this country each year with
  72
  the number who leave—the figures of net immigration and net emigration—one realises that they do not at present indicate a considerable problem. It might assist our debates if the Minister were to provide at the next sitting of the Committee accurate figures on that topic. I admit that my statistics are not absolutely up to date for this year. If those figures were accurately before us, that might help to lower the temperature of the debate.
  Lord Renton: The figures that I gave were provided by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in a Written Answer.
  Earl Russell: The Minister gave no figures for emigration.
  Lord Hylton: Later in the Bill, we shall come to the word "deception", but I notice that it occurs at line 22 of Clause 8. Can the Minister assure me that it must be serious or material deception and that the nature of the deception must be decided by either an adjudicator or a court before that part bites?
  I note that under subsection (4), notices from the Secretary of State must be sent by first-class post—and that is all—to be valid. We all know that the general population move around frequently. People who have been immigrants or who have possibly overstayed probably circulate faster than the general population. It would be an improvement if the Bill stipulated the use of recorded delivery mail as a means of delivering notices.
  Lord Avebury: The figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have nothing to do with Clause 8. He talked about people who have been given leave to remain. Of the 80,000 persons who were granted leave to remain in one form or another in the year in question, 67,900 were given indefinite leave to remain. Clause 8 refers to persons who have only limited leave to enter or remain. None of the persons the noble Lord was talking about would be in any way affected by the clause.
  I take issue with the noble Lord when he says that the majority of persons who come here as refugees create unemployment and poverty. That is utterly false. The noble Lord has no evidence for that assertion. If he has, I shall gladly give way to him. I know of no evidence to show that persons who apply for asylum are more likely to be unemployed and to live on the poverty line than the settled population. Such people may initially receive assistance from the taxpayer because most of them flee here from repressive regimes.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Does the noble Lord agree that a substantial number of people who were regarded as refugees initially have done a great deal over the years to augment employment opportunities in this country?
  Lord Avebury: I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. I know many people who have come here from repressive countries and ultimately played a very important role in our community—I do not just mean those who came here before the war, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Russell. I have in mind people

  73
  who have come to this country very much more recently than that from places like Iran, Sudan or Sri. Lanka, many of whom are already playing an extremely important role. Indeed, one friend of mine came from Iraq. He is a distinguished consultant in neurology.
  Another friend of mine came from Sri Lanka with his three daughters, who were all in the middle of their education at the time, but he had to leave his country under threat of being murdered. However, all three daughters have now finished their education: one is a doctor, one is a lawyer and one is a very competent computer scientist. So, not only the refugee himself but also his three daughters, who have now finished their education, are now making a significant contribution to our economic life.
  The latter example illustrates another point about refugees; namely, that they are more likely to be of the age when they can contribute through earning to the economy. They are less likely to be very young or very old and, therefore, a burden on taxpayers. If they are economically active, obviously they represent a more significant contribution to our country than if they were fully representative of the settled population in this country. So what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said is utterly false and should not be allowed to stand without challenge.
  Lord Renton: The noble Lord has accused me of falsehood, which is something that you do not normally do in this Chamber—
  Lord Avebury: It was unintentional; indeed, what the noble Lord said is wrong. You can accuse someone of saying something that is wrong. No doubt it is misapprehension on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am saying that he made that assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.
  Lord Renton: If I may say so, to be accused of falsehood in these circumstances is utterly wrong. The noble Lord, and others, said quite accurately that some of these immigrants and asylum seekers have a positive contribution to make in this country. But the noble Lord cannot say what proportion of them do so. I should have said that it was a minority. Of course, one cannot say how small a minority but it will certainly not be the case that, in general, they can all make a contribution. As I said, many of them cannot even speak our language.
  Earl Russell: I believe my noble friend Lord Avebury was accusing the noble Lord, Lord Renton, simply of error. That accusation is, I think, common currency in this Chamber. I hope that it will be taken in good part on both sides.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should hate Members of the Committee to descend to mutual back-slapping; but., nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and to the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Clinton-Davis for what they said. Much of what has been said seems to be based on anecdotal evidence; indeed, we could all produce such evidence.
  74
  However, I believe that I am right in saying that some research was conducted on the matter in a Home Office study some years ago. The research showed that, of those who were granted refugee status from among those who applied for asylum, the majority had come from a broadly professional background. It seems to me that that is what we are arguing. Therefore, it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of research. If I were to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Renton, of anything—I certainly would not dream of doing such a thing—I might, perhaps, gently suggest to him that his only fault has been inattention to the evidence.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I seem, inadvertently, to have opened Pandora's Box in seeking to oppose the Question that Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill. This is not in any respects a debate on a clause which discusses the merits and the numbers of those seeking refuge in this country. It is a simple legal point; namely, whether the proposals in Clause 8 reduce the rights of appeal of those whom immigration officers have said must go. That is the simple point that we are debating. I urge Members of the Committee to return to the clause itself—
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would also reflect on the possibility that this will give rise to many more applicants seeking judicial review, unless similar procedures are made available to those contained in Clause 55.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising that point because it is a reasonable expectation that it will do just that; and, indeed, that it may, conceivably, give rise to more applications under the Human Rights Act when it comes into effect. That was one of the points to which I sought to make indirect reference when suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that to review the effect of this clause would, far from doing damage to the Bill, actually give strength to it and to the future prospects of public "rumpi" when individuals are—as the public might think—unfairly dealt with, without right of appeal.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, strongly advised us that this clause stand part argument was essentially based on a legal issue. Indeed, the fact that the debate spread more widely was beyond his control. I should like to say a few words about that slightly wider debate before we conclude.
  I remember with great clarity what to me was an act of extraordinary courage by a Conservative Minister. I refer to Mr Iain Macleod who, in the 1960s, gave a promise to the people of Uganda and Tanzania that, if they were to be expelled from their country, they would be allowed to come to this country and would be recognised as British citizens, as they had opted to be so rather than be citizens of the newly-independent countries of East Africa.
  In 1972, when the matter became the centre of an acute storm about immigration—about whether there should be any immigrants, about race relations in this

  75
  country and about the whole question of whether immigrants brought to this country any substantial gifts and assets—it was the noble Lord, Lord Carr (I remember this and will always respect it throughout my life) who stood up in the face of huge pressures from his own party at its annual conference and said that Mr Iain Macleod had given his word and that he, as Home Secretary (Robert Carr), intended to keep that word. Indeed, he kept that word and several thousands of Ugandans and subsequently other East African Asians came to this country over a relatively short period of time; in fact, 26,000 of them.
  The right reverend Prelate referred to research and not assertions. There is clear evidence that that particular community has been among the most successful communities that have come to this country since the war. It has done a great deal to create employment and to build up enterprise and assets in this country. Of course, one could say the same of earlier immigrations, but let us say clearly and strongly that Mr Iain Macleod was right; that the noble Lord, Lord Can of Hadley, was right; and that both of them represent a powerful refutation as regards those who say that refugees bring to this country nothing that is of very much use to us.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkley: At the start of our debates this afternoon, I referred in passing to the dilemmas which face this Government and which faced many of their predecessors. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the tributes that she just paid to my noble friend Lord Carr and to the late Iain Macleod.
  We all want to deal fairly with those who deserve asylum; as, indeed, my noble friend Lord Renton would agree. But the problems arise as regards those in the asylum context who do not deserve asylum. As we know, and as the Minister said, many of them are put up to it by unscrupulous people seeking to make money out of other people's difficulties. For my own part, I believe that we have gained a great deal from many immigrants over the centuries. Indeed, that is obvious by just looking around the Committee. I was about to mention the noble Earl, but he seems to have slipped out of the Chamber.
  However, it is also true that it is no part of the assessment of an asylum seeker, or, for that matter, any other immigrant, to look at his or her prospective contribution to this country. They are assessed on whether or not they are genuine asylum seekers, not on whether they will make a contribution. If they make a contribution—as some do—that is a bonus, as it were.
  My noble friend Lord Renton is entirely right to say that numbers are relevant, as is the perception of numbers. We all know about the pressures that can be caused, and it is, quite frankly, no way to diminish the prejudice, the problems and the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to in connection with his grandparents, if the numbers are too great.
  All these matters have arisen during discussion of whether this clause should stand part of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, the debate has already
  76
  gone a good deal wider than he anticipated when he gave notice of his intention to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill. Clause-stand-part debates are a useful adjunct to discussion. They are more common in another place. In another place, all clauses can potentially be subject to clause-stand-part debates. However, in this Chamber one has to table a specific Motion to that effect. If the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, were to press this Question, I would vote for the clause to stand part but I doubt whether he will.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: A little while ago the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that on occasions an injection of fact tended to lower the temperature—I see that he is not present at the moment—but if he had hoped that, I think that he would be sadly disappointed.
  I do not think that there is any useful point to be served in challenging motives. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, did not mean to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had said anything improper. I understood him to say that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had misunderstood the consequence of the figures which he accurately presented to the Committee.
  The noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, were quite right to say that a good deal of ground has been covered on Clauses 7 and 8. I hope that I may indicate what Clauses 7 and 8 mean. Clause 7 offers those who have no lawful right to be in this country the opportunity to regularise their status. Far from being draconian, it is an offer to them—if they wish to take it up—to make their status lawful and settled. The idea that their status may be settled and lawful is extremely important. The new provision in Clause 7 gives overstayers who have no lawful right to be in this country an opportunity to make things right. However, if we make them that offer, we expect them to behave properly and to come forward—sometimes after a period of many years—to take advantage of a scheme which exists for their consideration.
  I repeat the undertakings which I have already mentioned in the context of the amendments spoken to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Clause 8 changes the procedure by which those who do not comply with the terms of their leave, or who obtain leave to remain by deception, are removed. At present someone who overstays their leave, or fails to observe a condition of leave, such as taking employment when the terms of leave do not allow it, or who has obtained leave by deception, is liable to deportation. Members of their immediate family, defined in the Act of 1971 as their spouse and any minor dependent children, are likewise liable for deportation. If someone is identified as an overstayer, or is working when not supposed to, the case is considered and then a decision is taken as to whether deportation is appropriate. The person concerned then has a right of appeal and it is only when any appeal has been dismissed that the deportation is made.
  I hope that I may allow one fact to assist us. Over 80 per cent of the appeals are dismissed. I do not want to get into the argument of whether we call a claim which

  77
  is dismissed bogus or abusive. As I say, the fact is that over 80 per cent of appeals are dismissed. It is notoriously well known to any human creature who has not lived the past 10 years in an igloo without a telephone that it is easy to manipulate the system. I have said time and again that I understand the motives of people who do that. I said on Second Reading that if I lived in a poor country and had children and wanted the opportunity to better myself, I should of course wish to take it. However, that begs the question of what the policy of this country is now, has been in the past, or is ever likely to be in the future.
  It is rightly said that we do not make these decisions on the basis of whether or not there is a certain class—as it was put earlier—of middle-class professionals who might benefit our economy. I turn that argument on its head. Is it to be said that those who have legitimate grounds to seek asylum from, let us say, Kosovo in the past six months, ought to be turned away because they are not middle-class professionals and do not have a medical or legal degree? However, that is not a point I turn against the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I turn it against those who will not attend to the fact that we must have a regime of control, the characteristics of which ought to be decency, certainty, efficiency, promptness and, above all, a decent fairness to those who find themselves in the situation we are discussing. That is what we are trying to achieve in Clauses 7 and 8. I believe that we are well on the way to delivering that. I have said—I repeat this—that if there is a possibility of genuine improvement to Clauses 7 and 8, I am willing to consider it.
  I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—I believe that my letter to her was correct on this matter—that speedy appeals and removals are addressed in Part IV of the Bill which it will be our delight to discuss on a future occasion, I think! We know perfectly well that the system at the moment is being abused. I do not accuse the individual who manipulates the system of particular wrongdoing. Such people are encouraged to abuse the system because of our systems and structures. They are often encouraged to abuse the system by those who want to prey on them. Of course, there is always the opportunity for judicial review in any system. However, I believe that the provisions of Clauses 7 and 8 are capable of reducing these appeals and attempts at judicial review. On an earlier occasion I told the noble Baroness that there would be an obligation on the Secretary of State to advertise and publicise the scheme under Clauses 7 and 8. That statutory duty is mentioned in Clause 7(4).
  I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—in connection with Clause 8(4)—that of course people move around, but it is the obligation of someone who is applying for leave to remain to inform IND of his or her movements and whereabouts. I do not regard that as unusually harsh. If a person is applying for leave to remain, it is perfectly reasonable for the host country to ask that person to notify it of his or her whereabouts.
  The noble Lord asked whether deception meant material deception. I confirm that it does because the key point is that leave has to have been obtained by deception and if it were trivial or not material, the leave
  78
  would not have been obtained by deception, in exactly the same way as the ordinary offence of obtaining property by deception depends on a degree of materiality; otherwise the deception is not operative.
  I do not have any precise figures to give the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I do not know how many people will apply under the terms of Clause 7 and I do not know what the consequences of Clause 8 will be. However, I am certain that a large number of people are living in this country irregularly. However, they are being given the opportunity to have certainty in their lives. This measure does not intend to scapegoat anyone. I believe that we are giving people ample opportunity to put their lives in order.
  I have tried to explain—but obviously I have failed—the difference between deportation and removal. Deportation normally has the consequence that a person cannot return while the deportation order is in force. As many of your Lordships will know, that is a minimum normally of three years. Deportation differs because it gives right to an in-country right of appeal; removal will allow only an out-country right of appeal unless there are other claims for asylum under the ECHR, which I mentioned earlier.
  We are requiring people to conform—I am not putting it brutally—to a regime which is there to serve a number of different purposes, including the purposes of those who may well be allowed to remain here. Those who are genuine—and are found to be genuine—should not suffer. They do so deeply at the moment because of the delays that are brought about in our system, significantly because other people's appeals prove to be unfounded and block up the system.
  I believe that Clauses 8 and 7 cannot be looked at separately. I have tried to explain that, if one looks at them together, if one looks at the systems available and sees the benefits of speed, certainty and proper behaviour, I have no doubt at all—to echo the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley—one will conclude that Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill. It is linked inevitably and irretrievably to Clause 7. Both of them are a significant advance on the arrangements—or lack of them—that we have at the moment.
  Lord Renton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the courteous and sensible way in which he has handled this matter. I hoped I was being helpful when I gave some of the background in the way of what has already been done in the 12 months ending 31st May. I never expected that the comments that I made would be distorted in the one or two ways that they have been. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has heard in the debate, he may not wish to press the Committee to omit Clause 8.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: Before the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, replies, perhaps the Minister would return to a question that I put to him during my remarks, and to which he alluded in his reply. The question concerned the linkage between regularising the situation of an asylum seeker or an immigrant in Britain with the issue of deportation. If those questions are linked too much in the minds of those to whom the Minister is appealing to

  79
  regularise the situation, is not there a danger that people simply will not come forward? I asked the Minister earlier—perhaps he would take a moment to explain to the Committee—the kind of circumstances he sees as relevant to a successful outcome for someone seeking the right to remain; in other words, what kind of compassionate grounds, family histories and personal circumstances will be taken into account in allowing someone an amnesty and the right to remain?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: One needs to focus on the differences that I have identified. There is no question of muddling up terms, I agree, between deportation, amnesty and the removal requirement. I have made it plain that deportation is a sanction which is graver than the removal sanction; it normally applies for a minimum of three years. We are retaining it for serious areas, on conducive grounds or on court deportation grounds, both of which are legitimate weapons in the armoury of any country's defence.
  I have said on a number of occasions—for instance, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—that we shall look at the kind of questions identified by the noble Lord. They are perfectly reasonable matters to be put forward. No one who approaches these matters on an individualised basis will be able to say that in circumstance "X" he will inevitably succeed. We are saying to people, "This is an opportunity for you to be free of uncertainty; for you to be free of the fear of the knock on the door; for you to know where you are; and, if you have got children, to be able to plan your lives". I think that is a proper way to behave.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may clarify the answer that the Minister gave me. What is the position at present in respect of those people who have exhausted all appeals and who are currently being supported by local authorities, at considerable expense, and occupying local authority accommodation? How will it be changed under this Bill? Is the Minister saying that nothing will happen to help local authorities in those situations until after the Bill is enacted? Is he saying that we will be discussing the matter under Part IV?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Part IV is a relevant matter for the noble Baroness's considerations. As to her question about what happens at the moment, I think that she and I will agree: very little at all, far too slowly.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am extremely grateful for those who have taken part in the debate. My own view is significantly affected by the fact that my firm does a lot of work for people caught up in the trammels of the legislation that we are discussing. There are cases where the new law will deny individuals the opportunity of an appeal. That is the nub of the complaint of all those who have spoken against Clause 8 as it stands. I have taken great comfort—as I am sure have others of your Lordships—from the extremely conciliatory tone of the Minister's remarks when he said that he will listen
  80
  and listen again to any suggestions from those who are still unhappy about the arrangements as they stand. I, for my part, will seek to take him up on that offer. For the time being I am happy to withdraw my opposition to Clause 8 standing part of the Bill.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Overseas Territories
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alameinrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in implementing the White Paper proposals for the overseas territories (Cm 4264).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we now move into what I hope will be less contentious waters. The change of name from "dependent territories" to "overseas territories" took place at the February 1998 conference in London, when the appointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, was announced as the Minister responsible for the newly-named territories. The White Paper we are now considering was published in March this year after what must have been very extensive consultations. Whatever legitimate criticisms noble Lords may have about the concept and solutions contained in the report, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is an extremely well presented document.
I am an admirer of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Its high-calibre officials are criticised frequently by senior politicians who should know better, but on this occasion the report has been beautifully prepared and the noble Baroness and her team at the Foreign Office are to be much commended.
Over the years we have had a number of debates about the different aspects of the dependent territories, most notably those introduced by my noble friend Lady Hooper. Rather surprisingly in view of the importance of the subject, this is the first time that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, seems to have had an opportunity to speak on this report. I very much look forward to the remarks of speakers in the debate, whom I thank most genuinely. I shall briefly concentrate on general aspects.
The overseas territories are a diverse group, varying in size, population and geographical spread. They exist in the South Pacific, the North and South Atlantic, the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, Antarctica and a rather important one at the southern tip of Europe; namely, Gibraltar. Having read the report, the only common factor running through the whole report that I could find

81
was that the overseas territories are responsible for issuing extremely beautiful stamps, which frequently become collectors' items.
I have the impression that although the collective name has changed from "Dependent Territories" to "Overseas Territories", by and large the situation has not, inasmuch as they generally require an outflow of resources from the United Kingdom—however that may be disguised by the Treasury—with very little tangible benefit to this country.
Perhaps I may use the Falklands Islands as an example, as it is territory that I know best—despite the fact that I seem to be rather unpopular there. I find that there is a tendency to minimise the obligations and maximise the rights derived from this privileged status. I find that some of the Dependent Territories seem to suffer from the classic "have your cake and eat it" situation.
I accept that the Falkland Islands are the subject of a claim by Argentina. But it seems somewhat unreasonable that, while Argentine citizens can visit any British territory without let or hindrance, they are excluded from the Falkland Islands; whereas the islanders can freely go to Argentina, and indeed should do so in order to promote dialogue in an attempt to solve the problem that exists between the islands and their nearest continental neighbour.
Returning to the general, overseas territories are an historical legacy from our imperial past. They present a problem to which successive governments have tried to find a solution. The White Paper is another step forward in that direction. It is much to be commended. I wish it well, and look forward to what the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will tell the House about developments that have taken place in moving this cause forward.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, for tabling this Question, and for opening the debate in so effective a manner.
I am something of a newcomer to your Lordships' discussions on these matters. However, I felt moved to make a small contribution after attending the annual conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the British islands and Mediterranean region as part of the British delegation—indeed the only part of that delegation that came from this House. Our hosts were the Gibraltar branch of the CPA. The House will not be surprised to learn that the six days were full of hard work, late nights, a little controversy and a great deal more agreement. Three of the countries whose parliamentarians attended the conference are British Overseas Territories; namely, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and St Helena. I can safely say that all three were impressed by the White Paper and supported its conclusions. Obviously, the statement in the document that,
"fundamental to the new partnership fill remain the right of each territory to remain British if that is the wish freely and democratically expressed of their people",
was treated as a significant re-statement of the understood position.
82
Other noble Lords will talk about St Helena and the Falkland Islands. I wish to address my few remaining remarks to Gibraltar. It would be easy for a first-time visitor to "go native" when faced with that mixture of charm and commitment that Gibraltarians, and particularly parliamentary Gibraltarians, use in persuading one of their case. Here, both government and opposition members of the assembly were as one, never missing an opportunity to put their case—and who can blame them?
I left Gibraltar with two clear impressions—perhaps conflicting, perhaps not. The first was the conviction, held by everyone I met, that the Gibraltarians are British and wish to remain so; and secondly, that geography, economics and history dictate that there should be close collaboration between Gibraltar and its citizens on the one hand and the Campo and its citizens on the other, for their common good. Indeed, it is an unnatural state of affairs where there is not that close collaboration. It seems particularly counter-productive for Spain—and by Spain, I think I mean Madrid—constantly to raise the issue of sovereignty and to cause general difficulties both for Gibraltarians and Spanish citizens who work in the colony.
The report of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee offers many excellent conclusions and recommendations. The committee goes out of its way to praise the one Spanish national, Senor Estrella. the foreign affairs parliamentary spokesperson for the PSOE party and, importantly, a deputy in Andalucia. He is quoted as saying that the sovereignty factor overshadowed politics in Gibraltar, so preventing the communities either side of the border from developing a normal relationship. The report also quotes him as saying, in an article that he wrote for the Gibraltar Chronical,
"One can easily imagine some of the steps that, under a new environment, might be taken without permanent changes in the status quo: a return to normality in fishing activities, a stable and smooth passage at the La Linea gate, a joint. cohesive approach to the implications—positive and negative—of financial and other aspects of … Gibraltar economy, tourism, co-operation, including—why not?—assessing perspectives for a joint use of the airport".
Surely the issue of sovereignty should be put on the back burner and co-operation between neighbours should be officially encouraged.
The British Government are almost literally caught between a rock and hard place in their dealings on the whole Gibraltar issue. Ministers are to be congratulated on keeping a steady nerve. I am confident that they will continue to do so.
7.46 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for having introduced this debate. I entirely concur with his introductory remarks that the White Paper is an extremely balanced and well prepared document. While I welcome the Government's intention to grant full citizenship to all residents of the Overseas Territories who wish to take it up—and it is by no means certain how many or how few wish to take up that option—I particularly support the Government's stated intention

83
in the White Paper to ensure that these territories meet full international standards on financial controls, and more particularly on money laundering, transparency and co-operation with the law enforcement authorities. That will clearly require a modification of the secrecy laws in many of the territories to allow co-operation with the international investigations and the creation of licensing regimes to promote fair competition, as well as the establishment of an independent financial and regulatory authority in each of the territories.
The United Kingdom Overseas Territories Association claims that most of the financial measures, aimed predominantly at the Caribbean tax havens, are already in place. But it concedes that few overseas territories have independent regulatory regimes. Several of the territories have also not yet signed up to the Vienna convention on money laundering, but have certainly declared their intention to do so shortly. Financial regulation in Gibraltar, already mentioned by noble Lord, Lord Bach, has been shown to comply with international financial standards. Therefore, Gibraltar deserves its position as one of the leading financial services centres in Europe.
While several of the overseas territories clearly need to improve their financial controls, it is not right that they should all be accused of promoting tax evasion. I hope that the Government will ensure that the proposed improvements in financial regulations will be implemented in a sensitive manner. Too great an interference in the affairs of the overseas territories could lead to many funds and institutional investors in those territories relocating elsewhere, bearing in mind the perceived knock-on effect of European Union legislation. The White Paper notes that Britain has signed the 1997 EU Code of Conduct against "harmful tax measures" and that member states are committed to ensuring that the principles of the code are adopted in all the dependent territories.
Your Lordships will be aware that the European Union is endeavouring to implement measures to tax non-residents' savings and provide information on such income to other states. Although I support the move to tackle tax evasion, I do not share the view that all tax competition is harmful. If all the overseas territories are forced to comply with the proposed new EU measures, potentially it could cause irreparable damage to their economies and, more particularly, the financial services sectors of several of those territories.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support the call in the White Paper for a new partnership for progress and prosperity between Britain and the overseas territories. However, I regard the reference to modernisation as rather an anathema, as my perception of the last vestige of the British empire is that it is a thoroughly "unmodern" affair. Apart from the calls for tighter financial regulations to meet internationally accepted standards, I also welcome the call for improving human rights and encouraging sustainable development in these territories. Although the Government retain the option of imposing legislation, my hope is that the territories will implement these measures voluntarily in their respective assemblies.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery for tabling this Unstarred Question. I very much share his support for the work of the Foreign Office and this report.
I speak this evening as president of the West India Committee. I wish to speak about the Caribbean region and the five overseas territories: the Turks and Caicos Islands, Montserrat, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. I have three principal concerns. The first is the extent to which Britain's policy towards its overseas territories in the Caribbean takes into account the potential economic instability in the independent Caribbean which may impact adversely on our overseas territories. The second is the likely effect of post-2000 proposals by the European Commission on overseas territories. The third is the danger posed by proposed EU and OECD changes to taxation which threaten to undermine the viability of overseas territories that have built up sound reputations as offshore financial centres.
The White Paper contains three basic propositions; first, that all overseas territory citizens should be given the right of abode in the United Kingdom; secondly, that the UK's overseas territories will have to adopt, or have enforced on them from London, legislation enabling Britain to meet its international obligations on human rights; and, thirdly, that Britain expects its overseas territories to tighten the regulation and supervision of all offshore financial activities to ensure that they are not used for money-laundering or narcotics trafficking. The report also confirmed that Britain accepted the right of its overseas territories to remain British for as long as they wished and that independence would be,
"granted where this was an option".
The import of the White Paper for the Caribbean overseas territories is that it confirms implicitly that Britain is a Caribbean nation through its decision to grant full British citizenship to the 92,120 citizens living in the five Caribbean overseas territories. This has substantial implications for our relations with the rest of the Caribbean. The reality is that Britain cannot now withdraw from or ignore developments in a region where it has to defend, in every sense, the interests of its own Caribbean people. It is a change which requires the Government to recognise that the UK's overseas territories and the independent Caribbean cannot be treated in isolation from each other. There is an urgent need for a policy that links the economic and political fortunes of the independent Caribbean to those of its own territories. The reality is that any political or economic instability in the Caribbean must, for all time, be of direct concern to the UK; in other words, the economic and political issues that affect the region, particularly the future of the banana, rum and sugar industries, must now be a matter of prime interest to the Government.
In addition, problems arise from the report of the European Commission that sets out its views on proposals for Europe's overseas countries post-2000. The Commission has made a number of proposals aimed

85
at dealing with the anomalous situation in which Europe finds itself with the overseas territories of its member states.
Time does not allow me to go into all the details, but the report suggests two possible solutions. One is that overseas territories should be involved in the political dialogue that Europe proposes post-Lome with the ACP states. The other is that under the present arrangements between the EU and the overseas territories some kind of regional economic partnership should be agreed with ACP regions like the Caribbean to make them WTO-compatible free trade areas. That raises tremendous difficulties.
Finally, one comes to the apparent confusion within government over EU and OECD proposals for tax harmonisation which also include European offshore territories. The point is that any end to the well administered offshore financial activities in our overseas territories will not only damage terminally their economies, but also ensure that companies and individuals who use such facilities go elsewhere.
These are very big and important issues, and I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is to reply this evening. We much look forward to her clarifying the Government's thinking on these points.
7.56 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for tabling this Unstarred Question and enabling us to probe the Government on what progress they have made in implementing the White Paper produced in March. It is always a pleasure for me to congratulate the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I do so today in relation to the content of the White Paper. It is a user-friendly document. First, will the Minister ensure that, although each copy costs £12, it will be distributed to as wide a group as possible? I also hope that schools and universities will have an opportunity to study the document. Will the Minister ensure that tourist agencies and the British Council also purchase copies? Many of us, including myself, are woefully ignorant about our overseas territories. I declare my own ignorance, in that I have visited only one of these territories: Gibraltar, for a mere 24 hours.
One of the main benefits of the document is to point out that the overseas territories depend very largely on financial services and tourism. Last year 9,000 visited the Antarctic, whereas 6.5 million visited Gibraltar. It is likely that the number will decrease because of Gibraltar's relations with its northern neighbour, Spain. I shall deal with a number of matters relating to Gibraltar, some of which have already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. First, we must ensure that Gibraltar transposes all of the EU directives. Of the total of 66, only four have not been transposed, including the 4th and the 7th. I ask the Minister how far Gibraltar has achieved implementing the 4th and 7th directives. What are we doing to help Gibraltar to do so? That is our duty.
Secondly, we have a duty to ensure that the constitutions, where possible, are revised. When will Gibraltar submit to Her Majesty's Government its
86
proposals for the decolonisation of Gibraltar? What assistance, if any, will the British Government give to Gibraltar to remove the remaining vestiges of the colonial period?
Thirdly, defence is important. Britain has a responsibility to defend Gibraltar; and the British Government have the duty to maintain the integrity of Gibraltarian waters. Over the past 12 months the Government of Gibraltar have come under pressure from two sources: first, because of the fishing dispute; and, secondly, from verbal abuse by high-placed Spanish sources which have stated without foundation that the Rock is a centre for drug trafficking and organised crime. I am extremely grateful to the British Ambassador to Spain, Mr Torry, who, in the Spanish newspaper, El Mundo, in March of this year, robustly refuted those calumnies.
Will the Minister tell us what support we are giving to the Royal Gibraltar Police in their duties of fishery protection and the interdiction of smuggling? Will the Minister take on board the advice of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that funding be made available for at least one fast patrol boat for the Royal Gibraltar Police?
Finally, the Ministry of Defence owns the airport. It imposes high duties and high tariffs. They are disproportionate. Could they be reduced so that more carriers can afford to land at Gibraltar, thereby increasing tourism? Gibraltar is on the Continent of Europe. It is our only European overseas territory. The other overseas territories and the rest of the world look closely at how we deal with Gibraltar. They will take note, not of my questions, but of the noble Baroness's replies.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I, too, welcome this all too short debate and thank my noble friend for initiating it.
I welcome, too, the White Paper. It took lengthy and careful consultation and preparation, but it gives an excellent analysis and a well documented record of the Dependent Territories, as they now are. I am pleased to think that the two debates held in your Lordships' House in February 1994, and June 1997, convinced the Government that it was necessary to think about the future and to set down the parameters of our ongoing relationship with the 13 remaining territories. During the debate in 1994, the late Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that it is not only discussion itself, but the fact that it took place at all which will be observed in the territories concerned and by those with designs upon them. It will be reassuring to the peoples of the overseas territories to see this White Paper even though they may not be happy with every line contained within it. I hope that the progress, about which we look forward to hearing from the Minister, will reassure them.
It should also be acknowledged that the overseas territories themselves have helped to bring about this state of affairs. The formation of the Dependent

87
Territories Association, and the organisation of two conferences in February 1994 and February 1998, which first coined the phrase "progress through partnership" was an important and significant step forward. Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, which were the co-sponsors of those two conferences, should be congratulated. They looked at the current status, examined relationships between them and their sovereign countries, and identified opportunities for growth and development. I believe that all that has led to the White Paper which I welcome.
I also welcome the progress in recent years on a number of issues which have been discussed during previous debates. I refer to the issue of citizenship and St Helena, about which no doubt we shall hear more shortly. The issue of funding, which arose from the problems over the volcano in Montserrat, was raised in a previous debate. People are now more aware of the situation regarding funding and the criteria relating to its availability.
The Falkland Islands have been referred to. I welcome the progress on this three-cornered relationship between Argentina, the Falkland Islands and this country. The meeting in May between the three parties appears to have been successful and a precursor of others. There has also been progress in relation to discussions on human rights, drug trafficking and money laundering.
There are still outstanding issues as regards Gibraltar. I welcome the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, and others. However, the issue of the European elections is of special interest to Gibraltar. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that when the next European elections take place in five years' time, the Gibraltarians will be able to exercise their proper rights. I hope, too, that the use of Gibraltar as an offshore financial centre will be clearer.
The White Paper is entitled, Partnership for Progress and Prosperity. I define partnership as a relationship which requires a fair balance of interests, two-way communication, and loyalty and support in times of need and emergency. The White Paper outlines that. I hope that it will not sit on a shelf and gather dust but will provide a useful basis for further progress in particular in the special relationship which we, the Commonwealth and the European Union have with these tiny democracies. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
8.8 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, for introducing this timely and important debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some clarification on the implementation of the White Paper.
With the limited time available, I wish to focus on St. Helena and her dependencies. The Saints welcomed
88
the White Paper with open arms. The St. Helena Legislative Council unanimously passed the Motion on 24th March 1999,
"That this House conveys its sincere thanks and appreciation to the Secretary of State … for the commitment to restore full British citizenship to the people of St. Helena, and looks forward to full consultation on the other issues contained in the White Paper".
The Government should be fully congratulated on putting right a fundamental wrong. However, if, due to a backlog of parliamentary business, the Saints will have to wait two years for the restoration of their passports, that wait will be unacceptable. Let us contrast that to the recently reported passport crisis which has been tackled by main Post Offices extending passports in the UK mainland, hotline numbers set up, and fast-track queuing. I realise that the context is different, but I urge the Minister to tackle the problem with the same imagination and sense of urgency. It must be remembered that the Falklanders regained their passports via a Private Member's Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government will remember the British Nationality Act (St. Helena) 1997 which sought to restore the Saints' nationality and found support across this Chamber. Indeed, it was passed unopposed in this House.
I turn now to education and training. During my visit to the island, I had the good fortune to visit Prince Andrew School. It was an uplifting experience: I saw committed teachers teaching to willing pupils. However, the teachers, through no fault of their own, sometimes lack formal teaching qualifications. That reflects an island-wide problem in that the training budget does not stretch far enough. For instance, just two of the 90 graduates from Prince Andrew School will this year go on to state-supported higher education or training. We should contrast that with the situation in Britain. A change in status to allow the Saints to be considered as British resident students would allow the St Helenian Government's budget to go much further. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on this important matter.
Finally, I turn to the economic climate of the island. It is imperative to expand the economy, especially in the context of granting full British nationality. If there continue to be scant opportunities for the Saints, they will look elsewhere for employment. The 1998 census showed a decrease in the resident population of just under 10 per cent compared with 1987 and an increase in the number of Saints having to work off-shore. Without a solid economic base, increasing numbers of Saints will leave their island. It would be encouraging to hear the Minister not rule out the possibility that extra funds will be made available at some stage in the future for the establishment of an air strip, should the islanders want one.
I thank the noble Viscount for the opportunity to debate this important subject and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall begin as every other noble Lord has begun by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for initiating this debate.

89
However, I do not share the views that he expressed about the position of the Falkland Islands. Although it would be good if relations between the Falkland Islands and Argentina improved, I believe that access to the Falkland Islands must remain in the hands of the Falkland Islanders.
Some of the first debates that I heard in the House were about granting passports to those living in Hong Kong. The late Lord Bonham-Carter introduced a private Member's Bill on the subject, and I remain disappointed that it did not pass into law because I believe that an injustice was done.
I have visited only one of the Dependent Territories: Gibraltar. Many questions have been asked of the Minister in this short debate and I am conscious that, if I ask many more, she will not have time to respond. Therefore, I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Hooper, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle.
I have a few questions to ask the Minister this evening, and I shall concentrate first on the issue of citizenship. That matter was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, when discussing his Private Member's Bill concerning St. Helena. Will the Minister confirm when legislation introducing British citizenship for overseas territories will be brought forward? I realise that the Minister will say that that will take quite some time—I would be utterly amazed if she said that the legislation will be introduced in this parliamentary Session. However, I hope that that will be a priority at the beginning of the next Session. There will be a problem if it is left to the middle of the next Session because, as we discovered in this Session, business is often shunted off the agenda at a remarkable rate of knots. It is worth remembering that the White Paper appeared in March. As the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, said, if it takes two years to introduce passport legislation, it will be viewed as a betrayal of the sentiments in the White Paper.
My second question concerns finance. The White Paper suggested that there be a financial review of the territories. What form would such a review take or what form has it taken—the White Paper states that the review will be conducted in 1999? Will the Minister explain what progress has been made with that review? The document, which provides information country by country, creates the impression that the overseas territories are doing extremely well economically and becoming independent financially. There are obviously some exceptions. A rather nice example was given of Pitcairn Island, whose sole source of external revenue comes from the sale of stamps.
I have one final question that I hope the Minister will answer when she replies to the debate. Will she give a short update on the situation in Montserrat and what further threats the volcano poses for the islanders?
8.15 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Montgomery, I fear that the well-deserved compliments addressed by my noble friend and other noble Lords to the Minister and the Foreign Office this
90
evening may lead to the Minister's imminent promotion. While that is thoroughly deserved, it would be a great loss to foreign affairs debates in your Lordships' House. I hesitate to reflect that that compliment may well seal the Minister's fate, but I sincerely hope not.
When the White Paper was published, these Benches found much to welcome and support—particularly the provisions on aid, defence and financial regulations. We agree that the heart of the partnership between the United Kingdom and our overseas territories must be the right of the citizens of each country to self-determination. The decision of our overseas territories to remain British or to he granted independence must be theirs and theirs alone—so long as it is the freely and democratically expressed wish of the people of each territory.
Although united by their common desire to maintain a constitutional link, our overseas territories are spread across the world, from Gibraltar to St. Helena. 'Their populations range from more than 60,000 to the tiny population of Pitcairn, which has only 54 inhabitants. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that a "one size fits all" policy will not be imposed on the overseas territories, given the widely differing needs and challenges that they face. Perhaps the Minister will confirm to what extent it will be helpful to conduct a review of each territory's constitution to ensure that it meets the needs of that territory.
My noble friend Lady Hooper spoke about funding. Can the Minister confirm this evening that the concerns expressed in the report of the Public Accounts Committee of another place about the contingent liabilities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the Dependent Territories—namely, that the British taxpayer continues to be exposed to very significant liabilities in the overseas territories—and the Foreign Office's admission that,
"everything is not wholly under control and that all risks are not weighed and properly covered",
have been fully addressed by the Government's White Paper? As usual, my noble friend Lady Young concentrated on the Caribbean—and did so from a position of admirable knowledge and experience. The stability of our Caribbean overseas territories and of the entire Caribbean is critical. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to develop one specific point that my noble friend raised: what progress are the Government making in developing a flexible post-Lomé European Union framework for regionalising arrangements that has the support of our Caribbean overseas territories?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, I take this opportunity to say a few words about Gibraltar in light of the publication last month of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's report on Gibraltar. One of the noble Baroness's key tasks as Minister for the Overseas Territories is to create,
"a stronger, more structured dialogue between Britain and the Dependent Territories".
It is not clear how that has been achieved within the context of the dialogue between Britain and Gibraltar. Indeed, we hope that Gibraltar is not an example of the

91
Government's new strengthened relations and structured dialogue with our overseas territories, given the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's conclusion that:
"there have been occasions in the past when the British defence of Gibraltarian interests has not been as robust as it should have been".
Does the Minister accept that the Government's failure to reject the present Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty, their refusal to introduce emergency legislation to extend the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltarians in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and the Prime Minister's inconclusive summit with the Spanish Prime Minister in April have all combined to send a very mixed message indeed to the people of Gibraltar about the Government's commitment to their interests and future?
Given the Foreign Affairs Committee's general conclusion that Gibraltar has the right to be treated in the same way as any part of the United Kingdom so far as the benefits of EU membership are concerned, and that the Government should press with determination for the fullest protection of Gibraltarians' rights as citizens of the European Union, what explanations have the Government sought from the Spanish Government to explain the anomaly that allows the Spanish overseas territories of Ceuta and Melilla on the North African mainland to vote in European elections, but citizens of Gibraltar, which is part of the territory of the European Union, currently cannot?
While the Government's record on relations with some of her overseas territories is a chequered one, if the White Paper signals the implementation of clearly thought out and sensible policies—which I believe it does in many areas—which will enable our overseas territories to take advantage of new opportunities in the next century, to play a full role in the global community and to maintain the special relationship that exists between us while they chose to do so, then the Government can be assured of the support of these Benches.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, for introducing the debate this evening about Her Majesty's overseas territories. I must confess to noble Lords that when your Lordships' House decided not to take the Statement on the Government's White Paper in March, I was a little chagrined. It is usually my fate to make Statements in your Lordships' House on matters within the responsibility of my ministerial colleagues, and not my own, as is this matter. I am therefore particularly pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this subject this evening.
The importance of the White Paper is that it marks a turning point in our relations with our former colonies, marking the start of a new forward-looking relationship. This is symbolised by the change of the name from "dependent" to "overseas" territories. At its core are policies and plans which form the basis of a renewed contract between the United Kingdom and our overseas territories.
92
Before turning to the implementation of the proposals in the White Paper, as the noble Viscount's Question requests that I do, I should remind the House of Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards addressing the relationship with the overseas territories. This is not an easy matter, founded as it is on a colonial past and concepts of Empire which no longer obtain today. Indeed, such concepts often cause anger, and even offence on the one hand, and embarrassment on the other.
In the review we set in motion in July 1997, we wanted to look at three key issues. First, how we can modernise the relationship for the 21st century; secondly, how we can consult the overseas territories about the future and encourage good government in them; and, thirdly, how we can forge a real partnership between the United Kingdom and the overseas territories.
I turn, first, to modernisation. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, was quite right: modernising relationships which are rooted in a colonial past is no easy matter at all. We need clarification of that relationship and we need to consider the role of the overseas territories in the wider world and their obligations to participate in the standards and the practices of the international community. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we are under no illusions here. We do not believe that "one size fits all". Of course, some issues are generic, but all the overseas territories are different from each other.
In fulfilment of our part, we propose to change the status of the residents of the overseas territories to grant them British citizenship. I am delighted by what the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, had to say on that in relation to St. Helena. I stress that this is a free-standing offer to the citizens of our overseas territories. We have not attached any conditions to this offer. It is not dependent on any other policies which an overseas territory's government may or may not implement. It will give proper recognition to their British connection, and their history, but give that recognition in the context of modern rights and obligations.
In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, it is our intention to pass the necessary legislation at the earliest date possible, and to that end discussions are in progress with the Home Office and other government departments to establish the principles and applications of the nationality aspects of the overseas territories Bill before drafting instructions are issued. The White Paper explained that this offer is not available to those who owe their British dependent territories citizenship to their connection with the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Sovereign Base Areas. The position of the former is indeed a particularly complex one, as most of them are citizens of Mauritius or the Seychelles, and are not in the same position as residents in our other overseas territories.
In the mean time, recognising that there will be some delay, we are considering measures to make current immigration procedures easier, a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh. These measures are related to the permission to stay which are attached to a variety of

93
training and employment schemes and to arrangements for representatives of the territories on official delegations to the United Kingdom and the European Union. We had an opportunity to discuss some of those aspects on the Question that I was asked in your Lordships' House on 7th June.
I turn now to the issue of consultation and the rights of the overseas territories to consider and discuss measures which affect their futures. My speech states that I will be chairing the first meeting of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council for chief Ministers. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, I wish to say to the House that I very much hope that I will be chairing that meeting, which will take place in October this year. That and the annual meeting with the governors are part of the ongoing process of consultation. I should particularly like to pay tribute at this point to the work of our governors. They have a very difficult and delicate balance to maintain between the demands of Her Majesty's Government on the one hand and the local aspirations of the territories on the other, while of course ensuring that all the territories are well governed. It is a particularly difficult job to do in Foreign Office terms and particularly when we are talking about modernising the relationship. I believe that the overwhelming majority of them have discharged their duties in an exemplary manner.
Moreover, on the consultation front, in April the chief Ministers or senior representatives of the overseas territories and I participated in the European Union renegotiation of the provisions of the Overseas Countries and Territories Decision; that is, the OCT decision. We discussed how to gain favourable market access to the Community, aid allocation and the dialogue with the EU on areas of mutual interest, many of which pertain to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Ministers from the overseas territories have been invited to participate in the Commonwealth Ministerial Meetings as part of the British delegation. For example, Commonwealth finance Ministers are due to meet shortly in the Cayman Islands. A number of territories are also undertaking reviews of the provisions of their constitutions. We will consult and discuss the outcomes of those in due course. An example of this is the work that is already begun on redrafting the constitution of the British Virgin Islands.
I turn now to partnership. Partnership is fundamental to our relationship with the overseas territories. We have obligations to them which are central to our foreign policy. They enjoy security, protection and prosperity from the United Kingdom. However, partnership is a two-way street. I believe that that lay behind some of the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, but in a rather different way. Partnership brings with it expectations and obligations on both sides. Those obligations were spelt out by the Secretary of State in March, and include adherence to international standards of financial regulation, the application of basic human rights, adherence to the rule of law and democratic government, the control of international crime and ensuring that the same standards of public service and law enforcement apply as in the United
94
Kingdom. We shall work with the overseas territories to ensure that their structures and practices are updated where needed to take account of civil and political liberties and modern methods of governance. We have a mutual interest in the control of international crime and the conservation of the environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked particularly about financial issues. Much has already been done by the territories in meeting international standards. I highlight here the legislation on money laundering, international financial co-operation and work towards the independent regulatory authorities in Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands, to which the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred. All those measures are to be very much commended.
However, as the noble Lord reminded us, there is much more to do. A meeting of financial secretaries from the Caribbean overseas territories was held in London on 16th June. This discussed the agenda on financial services regulations set out in the White Paper. Agreement was reached with the overseas territories and the Treasury on the logistics of carrying out the review of financial regulation. Draft terms of reference for the review of financial services regulation by independent experts have also been prepared. These will be discussed with the overseas territories before going out to tender.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the Government recognise the concerns and the burden that the OECD and EU proposals on harmful tax and other initiatives impose on the territories and their very real fears for the future of their financial services sectors. I assure the noble Lord, Lord St. John. and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we are working very closely with them to assist them in meeting those demands. Seminars have been held on the taxation measures and DfID has funded economic impact studies in Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The Foreign Office, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority have collaborated to produce guidance to the overseas territories on how to meet such international standards. The guidance is being discussed in detail with the overseas territories at a seminar on 12th and 13th July. We believe that that collaborative approach will enable Britain to meet its international obligations and to ensure that we put up a common front against fraudsters, tax evaders, money launderers and, of course, those who traffic in drugs.
As regards human rights, we expect our territories to meet their international obligations in the area of human rights. We expect Bermuda to abolish capital punishment for murder; Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands to abolish judicial corporal punishment, and. the relevant Caribbean territories to decriminalise private homosexual acts. A delegation from the FCO will visit the overseas territories later in the summer to discuss taking forward the human rights provisions of the White Paper and we shall review progress in the territories at the end of the year.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Government are looking at the whole question of contingent liabilities. We have done it and continue to

95
do so. Those liabilities change, as the world around us changes, particularly in the arena of financial services. However, I assure the noble Lord that that is very much to the forefront of our minds.
I have mentioned the importance of the environment and of combating international crime. We have had some notable successes on drug seizures in our overseas territories and there is also the issue of sustainable development. I was asked specifically about the position in Montserrat. The volcano is relatively quiet, but the volcanologists have indicated that pyroclastic flows continue from time to time on an ad hoc basis. I am happy to say that we have been able to ensure that £114 million in aid has gone to Montserrat over a five-year period, dating back the past two years and protracting forward three years.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we are looking at all the Caribbean countries in the context of what is happening in the Caribbean in general. The noble Baroness and I discuss the issue very often. She knows how much work is being undertaken in the FCO in that respect and I assure her that we are extremely vigilant.
I say to the noble Viscount that as regards the Falkland Islands, in May there was discussion on a wide range of issues. The Foreign Secretary invited the Argentine Foreign Minister and the Falkland Island communities to London for a further round of talks tomorrow, 13th July. I cannot anticipate the outcome of those talks, but I am sure that we all hope they have a positive outcome.
I turn to Gibraltar. Your Lordships, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Bach, are rightly assiduous on the issue. I do not accept that there is any doubt about the Government's commitment over Gibraltar. Her Majesty's Government stand by their commitment to the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution. The Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar will pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. That commitment is absolute and I say that as clearly as I can to my noble friend Lord Bach in relation to the points that he made. But of course that is a different issue; we are all familiar with the points in the Treaty of Utrecht.
As regards the parliamentary voting rights—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—our representative in Brussels, Sir Stephen Wall, has put forward our proposals in the appropriate forums about the changes we believe are necessary to the 1976 Act.
The White Paper is available. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that it is available on the Internet at www.fco.gov.uk and I hope that he and others will be able to look at it there.
The White Paper is not just about immediate action; it is about developing a continuing relationship based on dialogue and mutual commitments and obligations. We have reformed the way we handle the needs of the overseas territories, making sure that they have proper
96
points of contact and a clear voice not only here in London but, very importantly, in Brussels, too. With the implementation of these policies, I believe that we have strengthened our relationship with the territories, that we have a constructive dialogue with them for the future, and that we can look forward to developing these relationships with renewed confidence.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
8.35 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 26A not moved.]
Clause 9 [Removal of asylum claimants under standing arrangements with member states]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 6, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert—
("() Unless a certificate has been issued under section 62(2)(a) in relation to a person, he is not to be removed from the United Kingdom—

(a) if he has an appeal under section 55 against the decision to remove him in accordance with this section pending; or

(b) before the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired.").

The noble Lord said: The amendments in this group repair an omission. The combined effect of Clauses 9, 10, 61 and 62 is that a person who is to be removed to a safe third country, and whose case has been certified by the Secretary of State, has no right of appeal on asylum grounds while in the United Kingdom. Clause 9 deals with removals to EU member states. Clause 10 deals with removals to other states designated by order and to EU states other than under standing arrangements.
In all these cases, there remains a right of appeal on human rights grounds under Clause 55. Such grounds may be quite unconnected with the asylum claim. However, some applicants may choose to lodge a human rights appeal for tactical purposes. In such cases and in other appropriate circumstances, the Secretary of State may certify under Clause 62(2)(a) that the human rights claim is manifestly unfounded. There would then be no in-country right of appeal to an adjudicator.
As the Bill stands, an applicant whose human rights claim had been certified could not be removed until the time for appealing had expired. This is an unintended anomaly. I ought to add that nothing in these clauses nor in the amendments would prevent an applicant from seeking judicial review of the Secretary of State's certificate in relation to a human rights claim and no one would be removed while such a judicial application was pending. I therefore invite the Committee to agree to these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
("() Special arrangements shall be made to facilitate and expedite the removal of any person from Northern Ireland who, after taking independent legal advice, requests his removal to a member state within the Common Travel Area as defined by section 1(3) of the 1971 Act.").
The noble Lord said: As will be apparent from the support for the amendment and its phrasing, the amendment refers particularly to the position in Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission drew my attention to the fact that sometimes there are difficulties with people who stray over the border. Members of the Committee who know Northern Ireland will know that the land border with the Republic is not always well marked on the ground. It can be difficult to know precisely where the border goes. People wander across it from time to time. When I was a Minister, even members of our own security forces crossed the border without realising, and ordinary civilians frequently did so.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission points out that people who have claimed asylum in the Republic of Ireland can enter Northern Ireland without knowing that they have entered a separate jurisdiction and without realising the consequences of doing so. They often wish to return immediately to the Republic, but having crossed the border they are usually detained—I am not criticising the authorities for that—while procedures for their return are pursued under the Dublin Convention.
The aim of the amendment is to provide a quick way to facilitate the return of such people to the Republic, but there is a safeguard that they should have legal advice for doing so to ensure that they do not go back without having considered the consequences. I agree with the commission that if arrangements such as those described in the amendment were put in place, removal would be made easier and the length of detention would be reduced. Special administrative arrangements would be necessary, but they would not be impossible to devise.
Detention in such circumstances means spending time in one of Northern Ireland's prisons. We can deal with the matter in more detail on a later amendment. Suffice it to say that there are no detention centres in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland's prisons are very high security establishments—for entirely different reasons—so detention is not a matter to be taken lightly. That adds weight to the argument for an arrangement to allow those who stray across the United Kingdom's only land border to be returned to the previous jurisdiction without the need for the current elaborate bureaucratic procedures. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, because when I first saw the amendment it was not clear to me at what mischief it was aimed. It relates to the position of someone who is liable to be removed from Northern Ireland and who, after taking independent advice, expresses a desire to be removed to another member state within the common
98
travel area. We spent a little time dealing with the common travel area earlier this afternoon. In effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, says, it can only be the Republic of Ireland.
Transfers between states that have subscribed to the Dublin Convention may take place in various circumstances. I am happy to reassure the Committee that if the subject of the intended transfer consents, which is the underlying presupposition of the amendment, only the agreement of the receiving state is required for transfer to go ahead. We have not found it necessary to draw up formal arrangements between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that such transfers take place expeditiously. I take the noble Lord's point that one needs to be prompt. I am grateful to him for raising the issue. I shall reinvestigate whether there have been any problems. I understand that there have not been any and I am happy to give that reassurance.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for that reassurance from the Minister. I shall suggest to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that it should contact him on the matter. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dholakia: There are occasions when it is difficult to propose an amendment where there is a clear breach of certain articles—in this case Article 33 of the refugee convention and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is why we oppose Clause 9 standing part of the Bill.
Before long—possibly in the latter part of this year—the heads of government will meet in Helsinki, where one of the items for discussion will be immigration and asylum. There is no common policy among EU states on how to deal with such matters.
Clause 9 was added to the Bill after the lengthy consultation process that preceded its drafting and after it had received detailed consideration, including the taking of written and oral evidence in the Special Standing Committee of the House of Commons. I do not understand the purpose of the rush, but it is a matter of grave concern that the clause would restrict the jurisdiction of the courts and the appellate authorities on matters of fundamental human rights.
The clause deals with those whose claims are certified by the Secretary of State on the grounds that they can be properly and safely dealt with in other member states of the European Union. There is no in-country right of appeal against such certification decisions, but in appropriate cases the certificates can be reviewed on the grounds that the Secretary of State has erred in law. Clause 9 would remove that residual supervisory jurisdiction of the courts over the lawfulness of certain ministerial decisions, thereby removing any independent oversight.

99
All European Union countries are signatories to the refugee convention, but their interpretation of the provisions varies significantly. One of the critical issues on which there is no uniformity is whether the convention applies to prosecutions not carried out by the state that the state is unable or unwilling to prevent. That situation can arise in civil law when the state cannot stop prosecutions by powerful bodies and reaches its logical conclusion where effective government has collapsed.
Some Court of Appeal cases raise issues of concern, particularly the case of Gashi, in which a ministerial certificate stating that Germany was safe for Kosovar Albanians was quashed because fewer than 3 per cent were granted refugee status there whereas there was a 100 per cent recognition rate in the UK. The same problem arises with regard to Somalis and Algerians in France. A Court of Appeal ruling on that is expected shortly. Germany and France are EU states with well developed refugee and constitutional protection systems. In principle, a state signatory to an international convention should not cede its obligation to another state unless there are binding guarantees of safe practices that can be enforced at supranational level. Those guarantees and procedures do not exist in the European Union.
Clause 9 is a clear breach of the UK's international obligation under the refugee convention. We need agreed and enforceable criteria in all member states and a guarantee that those seeking protection under the refugee convention or the ECHR are able to obtain secure status.
Lord Hylton: First, I have a drafting quibble in relation to the clause which simply begins by mentioning "a member state". That expression is not explained in the marginal notes. We know from the Notes on Clauses that it means the European Union but on the face of it, there is nothing to prevent it meaning a member state of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OSCE or even the Commonwealth. Perhaps the Minister will ask somebody to think about that point.
However, there is a much more important point on the substance of the clause. In resisting that the clause shall stand part, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned the question of Algerians being transferred to France as a presumed safe country. It is a matter of common knowledge that collusion between French and Algerian state security services has been alleged, if not proved, over quite a long period of years. Therefore, it seems to me to be somewhat unsafe automatically to assume that all the European Union countries will be, ipso facto, safe for all kinds of asylum applicants. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am extremely concerned about and should welcome some enlightenment on Clause 9. However, I should declare an interest as a member of the Comité des Sages which looked at the European Union's civic and social rights over a period of two years. We went quite deeply into issues arising from this kind of legislation.
100
Disturbingly, we seem to be building a law on shifting sands. There is a famous couple of lines from the American poet, Edna St Vincent Millay which says:
"Safe upon solid rock, the ugly houses stand Come and see my shining palace built upon the sand".
Clauses 9 and 10 are both built upon sand and I shall explain briefly why that is so.
The European Union is in the process of expansion which is likely in the first instance, over the next two or three years, to include a first list. Within that first list are countries which we all want to see as part of Europe but which, on matters of asylum and immigration, in some cases cause a certain amount of anxiety.
For example, I mention the well-known fact that the Czech Republic's treatment of the Roma has been criticised by the Council of Europe and that the treatment of the Romanian-Hungarian minority has also been the cause of considerable concern.
I agree and admit that this clause is a relatively recent introduction into the Bill, which was not discussed by the Special Committee of another place. Nor indeed was it discussed at any length on Report because that stage was necessarily truncated for lack of time. Therefore, this matter has not been given the careful consideration which it deserves. The Explanatory Notes make no mention whatever of the expansion of the European Union, nor to the very real concerns which have been expressed about civil liberties in some of the countries listed for expansion.
When I say that the legislation is based upon "shifting sands", that is because over the next few years the EU15 will become the EU21 and possibly then the EU28. That will be a rather different proposition. It will not be possible to be certain that it is possible to define every country within the EU as safe.
The clause plays a rather complex trick, if I may be forgiven for using the expression, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, implied, it defines countries which respect the conventions in terms of defining them and they are then seen to be members of the European Union. But I am not sure that one can escape what seems to me to be implicit in both the refugee convention and the European Court of Human Rights cases; namely, that each case deserves separate consideration. It is based on substantive consideration of individual cases.
By trying to define the problem away, I am not sure that the Government are convincing in what they are attempting to achieve. As my noble friend said, having then precluded the right of appeal, in effect they are saying that their definition is infallible, that it cannot be questioned and, therefore, in a sense, the definition is self-justifying. On constitutional grounds, that troubles me very deeply indeed.
However, even more worrying is that it is linked with Clause 62(2)(a) which allows the Secretary of State to declare that a claim is manifestly unfounded. As I understand it, it also carries no appeal.
My noble friend referred to the fact that on some matters of interpretation in the courts, there has been a difference between the courts of certain member states

101
of the European Union; for example, on the matter of whether persecution is necessarily an instrument of the state or whether it can be an instrument of bodies which the state is unable to control, as in the case of countries undergoing civil war or general breakdown. Therefore, it would not be possible to argue against the Secretary of State's decision, if it is based on the self-justifying definition, that the manifestly unfounded judgment was properly based.
There is a second consideration which is another reason why I believe this clause is based on shifting sands. In the Treaty of Amsterdam it was made plain that the member states of the European Union were engaged in a process of trying to develop a common asylum policy. As Ministers will know well, so far, because Britain has not been a member of the Schengen agreement, it is still questionable as to the extent to which we shall be part of that common approach to asylum. But already the member states of the EU are trying to devise both a common position on the treatment of asylum seekers and also a common set of criteria as to who is accepted for asylum and who is not. As my noble friend implied, that process is still very much in a transitional phase. It has not been resolved one way or the other.
Perhaps even more disturbing, because it has not been resolved, so far the position of the European Court of Justice, in being able to take into account human rights considerations written into the Treaty of Amsterdam, is not yet settled because the European Court of Justice does not yet have jurisdiction over asylum matters, although that is implicit in the Treaty of Amsterdam.
I apologise for detaining the Committee on a side issue but it is crucial to this clause. I ask whether it is sensible for Her Majesty's Government to tie themselves down to legislation which, by the passage of events, is likely quite soon to seem both inappropriate and irrelevant? Is it essential to opt for that extraordinary circular self-vindicating exercise which leaves out of account the grave concerns that I have mentioned with regard to the political and legal systems of all the countries to which the European Union may expand in the next few years, in advance of what is not yet a completed negotiation on the subject of asylum policy in Europe and our connection to that asylum policy? As my noble friend implied, that is a matter for the European Council to discuss at its next meeting in Finland.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am glad to support the Motion that Clause 9 should not stand part of the Bill. I appended my name to that Motion and I wish to speak briefly to it.
Before I do that, I wish to refer to our debate on whether Clause 8 should stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I met in the corridor after that debate and we did our best to make peace with one another. was once his archdeacon and he was once my Member of Parliament. Therefore, we share a common history. It is not the first time that we have debated matters and we have always tried to do so upon an amicable basis.
102
Nevertheless, I stand by the points I made in that discussion. However, I believe that those points are entirely compatible with the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn., at the conclusion of that debate. To summarise, I believe that what he said was that we needed an asylum determination that was fair; that in that determination the matter of class was irrelevant. That is entirely true. We were trying to rebut the argument that those granted refugee status are a drain on the economy. I believe that it is a bonus that they are not, but it is not a criterion to be taken into account in determining their status.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned, there are those who abuse the system. Some do, but not all. The whole point of the system is to determine those whose claim is not founded. I believe that that can only be done by the process itself, not in advance of the process. Therefore, we have to have a speedy determination process. Because we do not have that at the moment, we have large numbers of people who are granted exceptional leave to remain. We all know the situation; I clarify it for my own sake.
Therefore, I applaud the Government's intention to reduce the period of initial determination of appeal to six months. The only question I have is whether under the present proposals it can be achieved. We shall return to that matter later.
I turn to the question of whether Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill. As I understand it, the intention of Clause 9 is to remove the possibility of judicial review of the decision to remove to a country in the European Union. I believe that the best thing I can do, because I am not sure that it has been done in this way yet in the debate, is simply to refer to the briefs I have received on this matter from four very different organisations. The first is the Medical Foundation caring for victims of torture. That organisation makes the point that the intention of inserting Clause 9 which, as I understand it, is a fairly recent insertion, was, as has been expressed by one of the Ministers in another place, to make transfers under the Dublin Convention less vulnerable to judicial review challenges.
This clause tries to ensure that administrative decisions about the removal to a country in the European Union should be protected from the scrutiny of the courts, and opportunities for legal challenge, however legitimate, should be removed. The Medical Foundation has given various pieces of evidence about the difficulties raised by this intention. I do not intend to go into detail in that regard, but simply to make the general point.
A very different body, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, also opposes Clause 9 on the grounds, once again, that it prevents access to judicial review to challenge removal and therefore takes away a right which is surely an essential right. This body challenges the abolition of many of the appeal rights under this new legislation. It opposes the abolition of an effective means of challenging the exercise of discretion which otherwise goes unchecked.
Another legal body, Justice, opposes Clause 9 on the grounds that it is, as I have stated, a late and unprecedented attempt to remove the supervision of the

103
courts over the lawfulness of decisions to return asylum seekers to other EU countries, and in doing so seeks to pre-empt a decision of the Court of Appeal, which is due to give judgment on this point, and the development of common criteria supervised by the European Court of Justice. We have already had reference to that issue. Therefore, it undermines the United Kingdom's responsibilities under the Refugee Convention.
Finally, the Immigration Advisory Service, again a very different body, also opposes this clause on the grounds, once again, that it was introduced with only a few days' notice; that the Bill was timetabled in order to restrict debate on this particular matter, and it enshrines Section 2 of the 1996 Act to the effect that the Government will enshrine in statute law the proposition that EU member states are to be regarded as safe third countries for the purpose of returning asylum applicants to these countries.
Perhaps the best example of the failure to be a safe country is in relation to the Kosovo refugees, some of whom were returned to Germany which did not accept their refugee status and simply returned them to the country from where they had come. That example is sufficient to draw reference to the dangers inherent in the inclusion of Clause 9 in the Bill.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am delighted to hear of the making of peace between the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I are old friends. We have agreed as often as we have disagreed. I hope that we are both too good parliamentarians for any peace to need making. If it needs making, I shall look forward to making it.
Clause 9 is defective in its drafting. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are perfectly acceptable. However, for the clause to stand up it would need a paragraph (c) to state that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the receiving member state will admit the applicant to the asylum process.
In all the Bills in which I have taken part on this issue, this is the point where we have always been held up on third country cases. People have been sent back to a third country which in the abstract may appear to be safe but it has not admitted the asylum seeker to its process, usually because it is held that he has been illegally present in the territory.
I remember a case from Belgium precisely on this point. It arose in the middle of our debates on this issue in the 1996 Bill. I regret that at this time of night I have been unable to check the name of the case, but I am sure the Minister will recollect it.
Because it does not deal with this point, the clause does not come up to its billing in the Explanatory Notes. They state:
"The Secretary of State is no longer required to certify that the conditions set out in section 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 … These conditions are that the receiving state should be one where the person's life or liberty is not threatened … the person shall not be sent to another country
104
otherwise than in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention. Instead clause 9 provides specifically that these factors shall be regarded as … satisfied".
They cannot be satisfied unless there is a requirement in the clause that people shall not be sent to an allegedly safe third country unless they are admitted to its asylum-seeking process. That is where the rub comes. It is not only the points about non-state persecution, although those are of substance.
My noble friend Lord Dholakia mentioned the case of Algeria. It is perhaps even more important in the case of Somalia, where state persecution is a contradiction in terms. When my son was doing a degree in strategic studies at the University of Wales, they used the case of Somalia to illustrate the proposition that Hobbes' state of nature was not actually a fiction. Any persecution in Somalia must be non-state persecution, which is why Somali refugees do very much better in this country than they do in France. It gives me great pleasure to mention something in asylum law in which we do better.
That raises a further consideration. Non-state persecution is an admissible ground under the European Convention on Human Rights, although not under the 1951 UN Convention. Since it will be excluded by the effects of the clause, can the Minister tell us precisely what reasoning led him to sign the certificate of compatibility in relation to this clause, because it seems to me that we will run into some problems?
The other question that interests me is what the effect will be of an attempt to exclude judicial review. The principles of judicial review do not rest on statute; they rest on the principles of natural justice. Those principles do not owe their origin to any Act of Parliament, and in fact antedate the first Parliament that ever sat in this country. Therefore, they cannot be derived from any Act of Parliament. They are principles of common law, as set out in some of the initial cases, 17th century cases but cited in the 20th century by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner in the precedents submitted in the case of Ridge v. Baldwin. These argue that it is part of the power of the common law to review the exercise of any power whatsoever. There is no exclusion in that.
There is no legal ruling on whether statute or common law, the principles of natural justice, are superior. I have no wish to see any such rule. There are some questions which, in my opinion, are better not answered. However, since the Bill is attempting to exclude judicial review and since certain potential litigants will be aggrieved by that attempted exclusion, the Bill does invite a trial of strength in an area where it would be much wiser for all of us if no trial of strength were to take place.
I have given the Minister notice that I intended to mention the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the case of R. v. Home Secretary (ex parte Fayed). That is a case with which the Home Office must be familiar since it was the losing party. It was a judicial review of the Fayed application for citizenship. Under the clause in the 1981 Act the Home Secretary was not required to give any reasons for refusal of citizenship. The noble and learned Lord accepted the supremacy of statute very

105
clearly but said that statute must be construed in the light of the principles of natural justice, just as we are now required to construe it in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Starting from that principle, he laid down the principle that if Parliament wishes to confer a power to act unfairly, it must say so in express words. That is a pretty steep requirement for any politician. Were that requirement to be applied to this clause, I tremble to think of the answer.
Lord Clinton-Davis: This is a very interesting debate. Serious charges are made by a number of noble Lords about the purpose of the clause and the Government's purpose. They have been charged with attempting to remove the supervision of the courts over the legality of decisions to return asylum seekers to other EU countries. Is there any justification in that charge? Is that the purpose that is underwritten in Clause 9? How will the situation affect the Court of Appeal, which is about to reach a decision on this issue? It is also alleged that it inhibits or pre-empts the development of common criteria supervised by the European Court of justice for determining asylum claims at EU level.
Those are serious matters which go to the heart of our respect for the law. I am sure that my noble friend would wish to deny that, presumably with convincing arguments in support of that denial. How does it affect our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on Refugees? I do not know. On the basis of the arguments so far adduced in this debate, I have not made up my mind as to whether or not those grave charges have been made out. But if there is anything to them, I shall listen with great interest to the response of my noble friend to those claims.
This is an issue which has not previously been seriously addressed, unless I have missed something; but those assertions have been made in the Committee tonight. As somebody who has taken a keen interest in civil liberties throughout my parliamentary career, I hope that my noble friend is able show that either the charges are ill-founded or, if there is any scintilla of doubt about that, how the Government propose to react to them.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: During the debates that preceded the passage of the 1996 Act, the Standing Committee considered in great detail two charges which the then Opposition—now the Government—levelled at the then administration. One of those charges was that they, were constantly trying to wriggle out of obligations under the law and to minimise opportunities for judicial review. So, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and earlier the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, I was concerned to see that during the Third Reading debate Mr Mike O'Brien, for whom I have considerable personal regard, was on record as saying that the purpose of new Clauses 9 and 10 was to make transfers under the Dublin Convention less vulnerable to judicial review.
106
That was an unfortunate sentiment—to put it at its most charitable—for the Minister in another place to express. It gives the impression that we are simply trying to wriggle out of opportunities for people to have their rights under law and to challenge decisions which they feel are unjust. To give the impression that we are trying to remove protection and to minimise scrutiny would in itself be extremely unfortunate for this Government, above all governments. I hope therefore that the Minister will reconsider that phrase and see whether he can give us a better interpretation than that which has thus far been placed upon it.
The other charge made in the proceedings before 1996 by the then Opposition was that the Government were trying to evade their international responsibilities. That has echoes again not least in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. She and her noble friend, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, rightly reminded us of the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of-Refugees and the 1967 protocol that followed from that. It is worth recalling the circumstances in which the 1951 convention was made. The countries that we are now saying are safe countries to which to send refugees were the countries with which the convention was drawn up to deal because of the offences they had committed in the whole area of abuse of human rights in the period that led to the Second World War.
Circumstances change, and the noble Baroness was right to remind us of the shifting sands. I should like directly to ask the Minister whether there have been valid applications by refugees who haw resisted attempts to return them to the Czech Republic and to Poland because they have been Romany gypsies, and certainly whether there would be many valid applications by Kurds, Syrianese, Chaldeans and others who would resist any attempt to return them to Turkey. Turkey is not currently being considered for membership of the European Union, but has expressed its wish in due course to be so considered, and certainly the Czech Republic and Poland are being considered. In those circumstances, can we honestly say that those are countries which it would be legitimate to draw into this net in this way?
So, Clause 9 and in due course Clause 10 raise certain issues which this Committee should consider. It is proper that Members should put a flag in the sand at this stage. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the two principal questions which were well rehearsed in the period prior to the 1996 Act, which this legislation is not doing anything to address and which probably makes a bad situation worse.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Nothing does greater honour to the courts and legal system of this country than the manner in which it has traditionally dealt with asylum seekers. In the extremely difficult balance that has always to be struck between administrative and bureaucratic needs, and convenience and the requirements of justice, I find it hard to believe that Clause 9 gets it right. I cannot imagine the Parliament of 1628, the Long Parliament, the Parliament in 1688 or any other great libertarian Parliament since

107
contemplating a measure that assumes a state of fact vis-à-vis a number of friendly states that may not in fact prevail.
Clause 9(1)(a) contains not a rebuttable presumption, but a series of unrebuttable assumptions that a person's life and liberty are,
"not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".
At the end of the 20th century, the world is in turmoil and dreadful things are being done on our continent. Our society is blessed with a degree of affluence and sophistication of legal process to which few others can aspire. I find it extraordinary that the Government should contemplate a measure such as this, for all the difficulties that they face.
Perhaps it is easy for those of us who are not Ministers grappling with the realities of such matters to underestimate how complex, trying and expensive they are. But however complex, trying and expensive, I do not believe that Clauses 9 or 10 are in the best tradition of this House or country.
I beg the Government to reconsider the plight in which some asylum seekers find themselves. The reply given by Mr Michael O'Brien to non-governmental organisations that are passionately opposed to Clauses 9 and 10, in his letter of 9th June, is not sustainable:
"Asylum seekers' representatives do not find it difficult to persuade a judge to grant leave for a judicial review hearing by pointing to what they say are differences or deficiencies in the procedures of other member states".
I do not know what the noble Lord the Minister thinks of that but, as a practising lawyer, I do not think much of it. It makes a series of assumptions about the whole process of judicial review that are unwarranted. Courts are not easily persuaded. Judges are not soft touches. The courts do give member states a margin of appreciation in refugee convention cases. The threshold for grant of leave to bring in a judicial review is—as the Minister knows because he has done it—relatively high. If the Government's case is succinctly summarised by Mr O'Brien's letter, they are severely mistaken—quite apart from the points so eloquently made by other noble Lords tonight.
The Crown is always in the position of going back to the court where leave to appeal has been granted to get that decision set aside if—as in the cases of Gashi and Aitsegeur, involving the French and Algerian Governments—the Crown, through diplomatic channels, discovers information that ought to have been put. On every possible ground and however difficult the problems with which the Government are grappling, I and others here tonight ask the Government to think again.
The Earl of Sandwich: I want briefly to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. We would all like to live in the European Union, where we could ensure safety among our close friends and allies. The fact is that we have not reached that point. Any of us who have studied even briefly the Schengen
108
proposals and seen how the Government have to decide cannot understand how Clause 9 can pass almost without question.
I have one question to put to the Minister. If the 1951 convention is universal, can he name any precedents for an assumption of safety for a group of countries within those signatories? As I understand it, being universal—and I am not a lawyer—means that all cases are treated individually.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The question arises as to the definition of "member State". There is no doubt that it means a member state of the EU, but it leads me to ask why there is a difference between Clause 9 and Clause 70 because the latter clause talks in terms of "EEA nationals"; in other words, nationals in a European economic area. It would be interesting to know why these two clauses are different in that respect.
However, that is quite a small point which can, no doubt, be readily responded to, but the big question is whether the proposition which lies behind Clause 9 is correct; namely, that member states of the European Union are "safe" as defined and that that will still be so even as enlargement progresses. We have all read recent newspaper reports about how the new Commission is giving some extra attention to enlargement with a view to making it progress quickly. Obviously that is something of which we are all in favour in this country.
It is interesting to observe that the proposition that member states are safe is being opposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who, generally speaking, has been very supportive of the nature of the other member states of the Community. That renders the point that she has made, and which others have supported, all the more powerful. But the question also is whether or not judicial review is ruled out by this clause, as the Government evidently intend.
I believe that I am correct in saying that the Minister in another place referred not to making these matters invulnerable to judicial review, but "less vulnerable" to it. It is a question of degree. Without any legal backing or personal knowledge, I suspect that that is correct and that judicial review will, so to speak, find a way whatever provision ends up in the Bill. That is a very important point, if one looks at the basic reasons for introducing this clause and other such measures in the Bill.
We all know from the practical point of view that, for very understandable reasons indeed, the Government are seeking to minimise the opportunities for those who would use the system to delay decisions in their cases by every device open to them in the judicial process. They are well advised in these matters and sometimes they have people advising them who are keen to encourage them, for their own reasons, to use every possible judicial process. But, in any case, if you are essentially an economic migrant, you have, by definition, a financial interest in trying to spin it out and win in some part of the legal system which may not be apparent at first sight.
It is highly understandable that the Government and Ministers should wish to minimise the opportunities for delay and misuse of the judicial process because,

109
ultimately, that is what it is. However, whether or not that should overtake the misgivings that have been expressed in this debate depends on the facts of the matter. I hope that the Minister can help us by giving us some more of the facts—by which I mean some more of the numbers—with regard to those whose appeals have been found wanting. Earlier the Minister said that 80 per cent of appeals of a certain class were dismissed. That suggests that many of them did not stand much chance in the first place but were nevertheless pursued for other reasons. This section of the Bill seeks to diminish the misuse of the judicial process. I am not unsympathetic to that effort but it has to be balanced by the considerations that have been mentioned in the debate.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The purpose of Clause 9 is to address the problem which was clearly identified in the White Paper of lengthy, unjustifiable delays to the operation of the Dublin Convention. A number of points have been raised and I shall do my best to deal with them. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the question of the views of the Master of the Rolls in the case of Fayed. It was open to the Secretary of State at the Home Office to appeal. He chose not to and took upon himself the burden—and therefore the duty—of giving reasons. There was plenty of advice available to suggest a successful visit to the Judicial Committee of this House, but he chose not to do that and, as I say, took upon himself the voluntary burden of giving reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that the test to get leave in judicial review was a high hurdle. I think he said that I had done that. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has done that. However, I must say that I never found it an extraordinarily high professional hurdle to get that leave. My advice is that my proposed addition to Clause 9 is not incompatible with the 1951 convention. It is important to look at what we are proposing as opposed to the "bogeys" that have been trotted out. I begin—usefully, I hope—with the question put to me most courteously by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton; namely, what is the definition of a member state? I accept that Clause 9 in itself is rather skeletal because it does not need to be fatter.
The Interpretation Act 1978 provides that certain words in statutes carry the meaning in the European Communities Act 1972. Schedule 1 of the 1972 Act—I entirely accept that this is a perfectly legitimate question when one is looking at Clause 9 on its own—states that "member state" means a member state of the European Community. Therefore the term "member state" in this Bill—in particular Clause 9—means a member state of the European Community. As far as I am aware from my present intelligence, that does not include Poland, the Czech Republic or Turkey. Questions were put about those other jurisdictions but they do not concern the point we are discussing at present. I shall return to the question of enlargement in a moment or two.
110
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me why I had signed a certificate of compatibility. The short answer is because I thought that was an accurate, truthful statement to make. A person who is subject to removal under the Dublin Convention will always be able to rely on the Human Rights Act and he will have a right of appeal on ECHR grounds under Clause 55. It is possible for the Secretary of State to certify that an ECHR claim is manifestly unfounded—I refer to Clause 62—but he will do so only where there is blatantly no basis for an ECHR claim. I return to my next point because the suggestion is constantly made, on no basis that I can discover, that we are seeking to wriggle out of judicial control. Any certificate under Clause 62 is, judicially reviewable in the usual way. I hope that that meets the proper concern which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis raised. It is wrong to say that any regime that we have is not going to be subject to judicial review.
Since the 1996 Act, the Dublin Convention has come into force. Under the Dublin Convention returns of asylum seekers to member states take place only when the receiving state has accepted responsibility for examining the asylum claim, a particular question put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That is the present situation and there is no reason to think it might be altered. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked me about standing arrangements. As relations in the EU change, so the term "standing arrangements" will obviously accommodate wider concepts.
In the background of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was the issue of enlargement. I hope that the noble Lord will not think I am teasing him too much in saying, as I did a moment ago, that Turkey, Poland and the Czech Republic are not members. I am happy to give the reassurance that all candidates to join the European Union are going through a process of bringing their legislation and institutions in certain key areas up to acceptable European standards. Asylum procedures are an important aspect of that. The process is monitored by the EU Council and the Commission. Present member states are actively engaged in assisting the states concerned to develop their institutions and procedures. Unless they have made sufficient progress they will not be allowed to join the EU.
It is suggested that there may be collusion between the French and Algerian authorities. All I can say is that asylum claims in France are dealt with by the French office for the protection of refugees and those who are stateless. I have never heard it suggested that that was other than an independent, well-respected body.
I return to what we are about here. We are about the avoidance of illegitimate delay. I entirely accept that the question that would then have been put to me by the noble Earl—had I not put it myself and tried to answer it—is what is legitimate delay. It is a decent balance, I hope, between the efficient conduct of asylum claims and the fact that sometimes the processes are simply distorted.

111
Perhaps I may return to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the trouble that the assertions about trying to evade judicial supervision and oversight had caused in his mind. It is plain on the face of Clause 9 that removal may not proceed if there is an appeal outstanding, the possibility of such an appeal or, indeed, a successful appeal in respect of a person's human rights claim, subject only to certain limitations under Clause 62.
I hope that that demonstrates that some of the assertions made are difficult to reconcile with what we are saying in Clause 9 and what is actually happening in the context of the European Union at the moment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Will the Minister give way?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If I might just finish my sentence, I will certainly give way, as I always do.
It is a notorious commonplace that the longer an asylum seeker is in the United Kingdom the harder it is to effect their removal.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for giving way. He is always extremely courteous; I apologise if I rose before he had finished his argument on that point.
Before he concludes this part of his speech, perhaps I may ask him about the issue he specifically raised about the commitment that expansion brings to the countries that are candidate members with regard to the acquis communautaire? The Minister is correct that they are supposed to conform with the acquis. However, he will be aware that in practice it is a slow procedure and takes time to achieve, especially at the level of bureaucratic decision-making and the training of judges in the courts of the respective countries.
The Czech Republic was accepted as a candidate country in the first wave despite the fact that there were continuing arguments about the treatment of Roma which have been brought up in the Council of Europe and elsewhere. In the case of Slovakia the issues were considered so serious that Slovakia was barred. Will the Minister therefore consider whether there is some distinction between what is undoubtedly the stated legal position, as he made clear to the House, and the actual practice—of which, as a director of an NGO constantly engaged in the creation of democratic institutions in central and eastern Europe I am literally every week only too well aware?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am, as always, grateful for the intervention from the noble Baroness. But she makes my point. She said that there has been a deliberate discrete review of two applicants. One has arrived at what might be called a first stage; the other has been rejected. It seems to me that that recent historic experience underlines what I am saying; namely, that prospective EU members are to be required to have such systems as are acceptable to us and fellow colleague
112
members of the European Union. By distinguishing those two examples, the noble Baroness entirely underlines my point.
Applicant candidate members have to ensure that their systems are compatible to the extent that present member states regard that as appropriate. It is important not to overlook the fact that all member states of the EU are signatories of the ECHR. They all respect the right of individual petition under convention. Every applicant therefore has the opportunity, before being removed from the member state to the country of origin, of raising issues of compliance with the ECHR in the courts of the state concerned. Nothing could be more different from the propositions that were put forward that this is some sort of collection of devices to avoid judicial scrutiny in this country or, just as important in my experience, judicial scrutiny in other EU member countries.
A question was raised about the universality of the 1951 convention and whether there was a precedent for finding, as it were, the automatic safety of other member states. It is a part of German domestic law that it regards other members to be safe as a matter of law. Again, with great respect, I am bound to say that in my travels and experience in Germany I have not found its courts to be lacking in determination in terms of European convention or constitutional matters.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I, too, am indebted to the noble Lord for his courtesy in answering these questions. Perhaps I may pursue a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, which is germane to the argument that he has just put forward. If there is an act of recidivism and a country falls back into its bad ways, what protection will then be available for any asylum seeker who is likely to be returned to that country? What action can be taken by the European Community to ensure compliance with the rigorous standards that the Minister says will be required before that country is admitted to this family of nations? What is the present scale of judicial review? How many cases went before the courts last year which occasioned Clause 9 to be placed before the House? In how many cases were applicants successful?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot give those figures. I do not know what number of applications were made for leave which were turned down. To return to my earlier observation and, I believe, the common experience of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and myself, I do not believe that it is an enormously high hurdle.
The point is: what kind of system ought we to have that is a proper balance between competing claims? The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, asked me courteously what could be done. I return to my earlier point. The certificate of the Secretary of State pursuant to Clause 62 is, and remains, judicially reviewable in this country. We are talking about a system that we are trying to set up domestically.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, raised a point of detail about EEA as opposed to EU. The noble Lord is right. EEA nationals include nationals of Norway and Liechtenstein. The Dublin Convention is

113
limited to the European Union states. Clause 70 provides a right of appeal for EEA nationals against decisions taken under the Bill. The Dublin Convention and Clause 9 are intended to enable the removal of asylum seekers to other member states which are responsible for considering the asylum claim.
The noble Earl asked the central question (which one paraphrases): how can one be sure that receiving states are responsible for enabling that the returned, discharged or removed become part of the asylum process? I believe that I have answered that question.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for a very long and careful answer. He has walked like Agag—warily. I take the noble Lord's point about the wording of the Dublin convention. The question remains: what happens in practice? I understand that at the beginning of April 1998 there was a Home Office directive that Kosovars should not be returned to Germany, in spite of which Mr Gashi was so returned about a couple of weeks later. If it were so absolutely clear, as the Minister suggested, that the process was working properly would the Home Office have needed to issue that policy instruction?
My noble friend Lady Williams referred to the Czech Republic. I agree that here we have the careful drawing of a distinction, but it was also part of my noble friend's point that the Czech Republic has cleared the first hurdle even while in a state when it is very far from clear that it is safe to return Roma to that country. One may get over the first hurdle without necessarily providing safe asylum for the returning person, and that indicates the possibility of a continuing problem. I hope that the Minister can walk even more warily.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: However persuasive may be the noble Earl, he does not take me away from my fundamental rejoinder that the discrete examples given by the noble Baroness make my case. The wider point is that, walking however comfortably or uncomfortably, I cannot guarantee the internal standards of behaviour judicially, administratively and bureaucratically of every member of the European Union. But the EU states have signed up to the convention (to put it brutally) which is written into the Treaty of Amsterdam. In the next few years binding legal minimum standards are to be introduced for asylum procedures across the EU. If candidate states cannot conform to those, they will not be accepted as members.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for his explanation. He referred to the Treaty of Amsterdam which provides for joint criteria for the determination of asylum claims and common standards. But the point remains that they are not there and, therefore, they are a matter for discussion. As both I and my noble friend Lady Williams pointed out, this is a matter that the heads of state will discuss when they meet in Finland before long.
We shall never determine who is right or wrong in terms of the interpretation of the refugee convention and the ECHR. I have no doubt that what we have said bears that out in terms of the large number of briefs that have
114
been produced on this particular subject. Home Secretaries can be wrong, as has happened on a number of occasions in the past. We shall read very carefully what the Minister has said, but we shall certainly return to this matter on Report. It is possible that at that time we shall seek the opinion of the House.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 7 and insert—
("() Unless a certificate has been issued under section 62(2)(a) in relation to a person, he is not to be removed from the United Kingdom—

(a) if he has an appeal under section 55 against the decision to remove him in accordance with subsection (2) pending; or

(b) before the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("subsections (2)(c) and") and insert ("subsection").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: On these Benches we oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill. I shall not detain the Committee for as long as did the debate on Clause 9. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be wrong for Clause 10 to remain unquestioned in this Chamber in view of the provisions made by the clause. The fundamental argument put forward with his usual eloquence by the Minister about Clause 9 is that essentially EU countries share a common legal and political system with the United Kingdom; and they are countries where the rule of law applies for those seeking asylum and refugee status.
At Clause 10 those provisions accepting that the right of appeal can be removed rather strangely disappear. No one argues that those so-called safe third countries necessarily share an acquis communautaire or common legal and political system with the United Kingdom. Therefore questions are raised about what constitutes a safe country. Perhaps the Minister can help us by saying a little more about the criteria which enable the Secretary of State to be sure that when he returns someone to a safe third country it is indeed that.
In the earlier debate on Clause 9, I made the point that matters can change very quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others pointed out that even in Europe there can be dramatic changes. In third countries—it covers a wide range of possibilities—that is even more true. I take only one example, to save the time of the Committee—Nigeria. A few years ago Nigeria was argued to be on the so-called white list: a safe country. Then Nigeria was a country to which we felt able to return some distinguished dissidents including Mr Ken

115
Iwo Wiwa. It then turned out that Nigeria was anything but a safe country; it was an extremely dangerous country. As it fell under the control of General Abacha it became a troubling and brutal tyranny; and many people were ordered to be killed at his hands. Today Nigeria, we hope, is once again a relatively safe country although it is perhaps a little early to say. That process has taken place in the passing of only a decade.
So one is entitled to ask how we establish that a country is safe especially given that we have no reason to believe that it shares the same legal and political system to the extent that the European Union does.
My noble friend Lord Dholakia and I spent some time with the immigration appeals tribunal discovering how it made decisions which involved the return of people to third world countries. We were impressed by the considerable degree of data collection and information available to those distinguished men and women. That information was frequently updated. It was presented and updated regularly by people from a wide range of organisations with real knowledge of the many countries in the word.
I do not wish to appear to be destructive in these arguments so I shall endeavour to be constructive. Has any consideration been given to the possibility of establishing an advisory committee which could help to establish whether countries were safe? It would be somewhat inadequate for that to be done by one government department, however wise and good. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that appeals will find a way. Clause 10 is wide open to the possibility that virtually everyone will seek a judicial review by arguing that Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights applies to him, and that therefore he cannot be sent back to a safe third country unless there are well established grounds for saying that it is safe.
In that context, I welcome the Minister's assurance on Clause 62(2), the somewhat disturbing clause which gives the Secretary of State the right to say that an appeal is manifestly unfounded. That will destroy the right of any further appeal. That does not apply to European convention cases. I ask the Minister to say a little more about the situation with regard to finding an appeal manifestly unfounded. Can that be done without close knowledge of the country to which it is suggested that the person should be returned?
Lord Avebury: I remember rather well the proceedings on the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 because I took each of the four countries that were designated as safe and showed in some detail—perhaps to the considerable ennui of your Lordships—why those countries should not be included on the "white" list, as many people erroneously called it.
In parenthesis, my noble friend Lady Williams may remember that it was suggested initially that Nigeria be included on the list, but there was such an outcry that it was removed. As I remember it, the list finally comprised Bulgaria, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania. I moved four amendments on that occasion in an attempt to eliminate from the list Bulgaria, Ghana,
116
India and Pakistan for reasons that I shall not go into again because they were rehearsed thoroughly at the time.
I tried to show that there were good reasons why people might fear persecution in those countries. As my noble friend said, those reasons can change rapidly. I draw your Lordships' attention to recent developments in Pakistan, where the Ahmadis have suffered severe persecution. Two of their religious leaders have been assassinated and many Ahmadis have been arrested on false charges of blasphemy, which carries the death penalty in Pakistan. The name of the city of Rabwa, which the Ahmadis founded, has been altered arbitrarily to a name that is permitted under the law that prevents the Ahmadis from using an Arabic term. The city carried its original name from its foundation and the Ahmadis built it from scratch into a flourishing, prosperous enterprise.
That is an example of the way in which conditions may deteriorate rapidly within a given state. Sectarianism and bigotry is causing a great deal of suffering not just to the Ahmadis, but to many religious groups—including the Christians—in Pakistan. There has been strife between the Sunnis and the Shi'as involving the mutual destruction of mosques, assassinations and so on, which, I am afraid, stems partly from the influence of neighbouring Afghanistan. We could discuss those matters in detail on another occasion. I simply illustrate the fact that, if we add a country to the list and say that nobody from that state has a reason for claiming persecution, we may find that conditions will change rapidly for the worst and people may have very good reasons for making asylum claims.
The Minister may be familiar with the case of a refugee from Pakistan who, after a long struggle over many years, was recently successful in his asylum action. I speak of Mr Khalid Lodhi, a distinguished journalist from Pakistan, who claimed asylum but was refused. He took his case to appeal and lost, but finally, after many struggles, managed to prevail when the court decided that his claim had foundation. Mr Lodhi had written a series of articles about corruption in Pakistan, criticising both the previous regime of Benazir Bhutto and the present regime under Mr Nawaz Sharif. Mr Lodhi feared persecution in Pakistan, and his fears were found to be genuine. He was finally allowed to remain in this country, against the diktat of the Home Office. What would have happened to him if—as is proposed under Clause 10—the Home Office had declared that Pakistan was a safe place? Would Mr Lodhi have been deprived of the opportunity to go to court and challenge the Home Office decision?
I think that it is very unsafe, on principle, to suggest that any country should be designated in the way that Clause 10 proposes. I would prefer to return to the pre-1996 situation, as the present Government advocated during debates at the time. They supported the idea that we should not have specially designated countries that were deemed to be safe. Now they have not only accepted the principle then laid down by the Tories, but they have embroidered upon it in this clause. I think that is a deplorable state of affairs.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: My noble friend Lord Avebury sells himself short. He talks of the ennui of the House, but in the course of those amendments, he provided me with one of my most delightful moments in this Chamber. The House was discussing Ghana. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave an account at great length of the quarrel between the president and the vice-president. My noble friend stood up and said, "That is not what the vice-president said to me on the telephone last Saturday". I do not expect again to have quite such a pleasurable moment.
Underneath that, this is a very serious issue. Countries change, and government policies towards those countries change, but they never change exactly in sequence. My parents' generation were used to regarding Italy as a particularly civilised country, but it took them quite a while to learn that that was no longer the case, especially once the trains were running on time. Our generation is capable of making exactly the same mistakes. Since the last election, we have had three very welcome changes of policy towards Kosovo, Algeria and Somalia. In 1997, 14 per cent of Algerians were granted asylum. In 1998, it was 88 per cent. That is a welcome change, but I do not believe that Algeria was very much more dangerous in 1998 than it was in 1997. The application of a rule simply because of a time lag does necessarily create a problem.
Furthermore, even where a country is generally extremely safe, as often—especially if you are white—the United States may be, there may be a problem for some particular people. The late Mr Matthew Shepherd, who was the victim of a homophobic murder in Wyoming, had he succeeded in getting out, would, I believe, have had a well-founded fear of persecution. Homosexuals are recognised by the Appellate Committee of this House as a particular group within the meaning of the convention. That could have been a perfectly genuine case from a country which provides very few such cases indeed. An assessment of a country is no substitute for individual scrutiny.
Another matter that worries me is the immense Henry VIII power in Clause 10(1)(b), which states:
"a country other than a member State which is designated by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section".
There is no limit on how far that could be used. It could be used under a future government in a quite different political climate, possibly for disapplying the legislation even to every country in the world. I see no immediate prospect of that, but putting powers of that kind on the statute book is not prudent legislation. King Henry VIII had some virtues, but I do not think that clauses of this kind are among them.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I do not believe that I can share the noble Earl's enthusiasm for any of the so-called "virtues" of Henry VIII, but I agree entirely with him that Clause 10(1)(b) is—
Earl Russell: I did not say he had very many.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I am not sure that he had any at all, but we can resume that discussion elsewhere.
118
I agree with the noble Earl that the wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State are wholly undesirable and way beyond what should be offered in the scope of the Bill. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we should revert to the pre-1996 position. That is precisely what the then Opposition argued in Committee when we considered the 1996 legislation. The noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, expressed their sense of ennui concerning that legislation. Although I was not here then, I recall the debates in Standing Committee in another place where the very arguments put forward tonight by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about Nigeria were advanced by Members of the Labour Opposition and by myself. Indeed, we raised other examples such as Romania and that raised tonight by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the problems of sexual orientation and religious discrimination there. Those problems continue today.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue of Pakistan and the use of the blasphemy laws there. It has been well documented world-wide by organisations such as the Jubilee Campaign and Christian Solidarity. It would by no means be a safe country to return people of that religious minority to that country. We should therefore be most careful about putting such power into this legislation.
If Clause 9 raised concerns in the context of the EU and states which might wish to join, how much more pernicious it is to give the Secretary of State the power to designate other countries as safe third countries outside the EU or North America? The arguments which were deployed earlier can be deployed here, but to an even greater extent. To enshrine in statute the presumption of a country's safety can take no account of rapid changes in the political and social climate in those countries. Before justifying such changes in Clauses 9 or 10, the Minister owes it to the Committee to describe how formidable are the problems by enumerating the number of attempts to challenge the Secretary of State at law during the past 12 months, since the 1996 legislation, where it was considered that there have been injustices. If that has not been a massive problem hitherto, I can see no justification for extending the powers and diminishing the right to go to law for those who feel that such clauses may adversely affect them.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I shall not enter into the general questions raised by the debate, although they are pertinent. They have been covered thoroughly. I want to draw attention to the fact that the power, whether Henry VIII or otherwise, is very wide. The power in Clause 10(1)(b) appears to be circumscribed only by the negative procedure in Parliament. It will not be used all that often and therefore it would not be too great a burden on either House if the power were subject to affirmative resolutions. In view of the potential importance of the power, that would seem to be appropriate.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I hate to mention this, but Clause 10(1)(b) simply replicates the existing power in Section 2(3)(g) of the 1996 Act. So when phrases

119
such as "taking this new power" are used, I repeat that it is simply a replication of the existing power in the existing Act—
Lord Avebury: That does not make it any better.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It does not make it any better, but it does not describe itself sensibly, accurately or appropriately as "this new power". That is the phrase with which I am dealing. It is important to remember that although one does not want to go around stirring up apathy, one does not want to stir up things which are factually incorrect. Of course that does not make it any better. I am simply saying that it is not, not, not a new power.
Clause 10(1)(b) says that even once an order is made designating a country as safe, the Secretary of State still has to certify in each case that removal is safe. Removal will also still be subject to the current judicial review challenges. There are at least two ducks that should now be dead.
Only four states outside the European Union have ever been designated as safe under the 1996 Act. They do not include Pakistan or any of the other countries that have been mentioned tonight. They include countries that, curiously, were not mentioned tonight, except in the context of one homophobic murder to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred. The safe countries designated are Canada, Norway, Switzerland and the United States. That is a good illustration of the proposition that I have been putting.
Earl Russell: All that my noble friends have said is that at the time of the 1996 Act it was proposed to designate certain countries. That is what the then Minister told us.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That supports my argument. Proposals can whistle. I am talking about what happened, not what your noble Lordships say is likely to happen, with the collapse of civilisation when the clause becomes law. That has not happened because there has been a good deal of cautious scrutiny. I repeat, however disagreeable the fact may be, that the only four countries involved are Canada, Norway, Switzerland and the United States. It is right to be cautious. Clause 10 reproduces the existing power without substantive change. Caution will continue to be applied.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked about an advisory committee—perhaps even an informal one—or at least some mechanism to provide a basis of coherent thought for any judgment that might be arrived at. I am more than happy to give that idea consideration.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should like to ask one question for clarification. My understanding was that Clause 10 removed in-country appeal rights other
120
than under the ECHR—I believe that it is Article 3—in a way that is different from the 1986 Act. Is that incorrect?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is incorrect. As always, the Secretary of State's judgment will be subject to judicial review. There is no change to the opportunity for judicial review challenge.
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness heard me, but I was responding to her suggestion about an advisory committee or some similar mechanism. I shall give the idea every appropriate thought.
Lord Avebury: In giving the matter appropriate thought, will the Minister also undertake that such an advisory committee would be able to review the assessments that are published by the Home Office of individual countries and their human rights performance? I congratulate the Home Office on producing those assessments, which are a great advance on previous practice because they give references for all their statements whereas we used to get ex cathedra statements about the human rights performance of various countries. Every assertion in the assessments is referenced back to a document from sources such as the US State Department, Human Rights Watch reports or Amnesty International reports. However, there are still errors in the assessments. If the Secretary of State sets up such a committee, it would be useful if it could also review the factual content of the Home Office country assessments, covering not just what they contain, but what they sometimes omit, which is equally important for determining asylum applications.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have simply said that I shall consider the ideas that have been put forward. One of the advantages of the late Henry VIII that has not been mentioned is that since his death ex cathedra announcements have not formed a significant part of the administration of the bureaucratic system in this country.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for agreeing to consider my suggestion. I hope I am not being too tedious in returning to what I believe is a point of misunderstanding between us, which I shall seek to clarify.
My understanding was, as the Minister said in his previous answer, that there would remain a right of judicial appeal from Clause 10 under certain considerations; in particular, if the person concerned argued on European Convention grounds that he should not be returned to a designated safe third country. My understanding was that no in-country appeal in this country still exists other than judicial review to a higher court with regard to being returned to a third country. That understanding was based on the case of Clause 9, on the similarity of EU structures to those of this country. I was pointing out that in the case of Clause 10, one could not make that argument. Am I

121
therefore incorrect in understanding that the appeal within this country other than through judicial review is in fact ceasing to exist?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have tried to make it plain. There is no derogation from judicial review—
Lord Avebury: That was not the question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is the answer, because it is quite important to get it right. There is no derogation from judicial review between Clause 10 and Clause 2(3) of the 1996 Act. The human rights appeals are to be found in Clause 55, where it is stated:
"A person who alleges that an authority has, in taking any decision under the Immigration Acts relating to that person's entitlement to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, acted in breach of his humans rights may appeal to an adjudicator against that decision",
that is, Acts made unlawful by section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Subsection (2) states:
"For the purposes of this Part, an authority acts in breach of a person's human rights if he acts, or fails to act...in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Subsections (4) and (5) apply if, in proceedings before an adjudicator … a question arises as to whether an authority has, in taking any decision under the Immigration Acts relating to the appellant's entitlement to enter or remain … acted in breach of the appellant's human rights.
The adjudicator, or the Tribunal, has jurisdiction … "Authority" means … the Secretary of State … an immigration officer … a person responsible for the grant or refusal of entry clearance".
Those are the rights set out in Clause 55. The judicial review challenge to the Home Secretary's "discretion" remains intact.
Earl Russell: There is a distinction to be made. Judicial review goes to the procedure, not to the merits.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Judicial review is not simply limited to procedure. It relates to reasonableness as well.
Earl Russell: I was well aware of that. But it does not normally relate to the main body of the merits. Let us suppose that someone wished to contest the rule under Clause 10 on the grounds that the Home Secretary had mistaken his nationality. Disputes about nationality are by no means unknown. Is that going to be excluded?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Disputes about nationality under Clause 10 have nothing to do with judicial review, except if, on Wednesbury principles or procedure principles, the judicial review can bite. If the Home Secretary comes to a factual conclusion which is unreasonable, then the courts can act in appropriate
122
cases. That has always been the case in this country and the general development of judicial review indicates that.
Earl Russell: Of course I understand that. A conclusion may be "reasonable", and yet nevertheless it may actually be incorrect. In such a case I want to find out what is the position under this Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot produce hypothetical answers to every conceivable question that may be put by the noble Earl. If the Secretary of State comes to a conclusion which is procedurally inappropriate, irrational or unreasonable on Wednesbury grounds, he is still liable to judicial challenge.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Security on grant of entry clearance]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("In such circumstances as may be specified,").
The noble Lord said: We move from the wide spaces and great heights of the previous discussions to small pieces of nitty gritty. Amendment No. 31 stands in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.
Clauses 12 and 13 seek to confer powers on the Government to enable them to introduce a financial bond scheme for visitors to the United Kingdom. At present, this is proposed under Clause 12 in such circumstances as may be specified. It is an extremely wide provision. The purpose of the amendment is to try to stipulate the circumstances when a financial bond will be required. It is a question of certainty in the law and of people knowing where they stand.
Amendment No. 32, in the same grouping, is at least one attempt to set out the type of circumstances which the Secretary of State might like to set down. We are not trying to be prescriptive with this collection of circumstances but to suggest the type of circumstances which might be included in the Bill. I do not, therefore, propose to discuss in detail the different reasons we have proposed in Amendment No. 32, They could be discussed in more detail if the Government were prepared to agree that a little more detail sh3uld he given as to the specific circumstances in which they think this power might be used. I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: When I read this clause I thought that this seemed a very odd phrase; namely,
"In such circumstances as may be specified".
Therefore, I commend the amendment moved by my noble friend to the Committee. I wondered whether the phrase meant "in such circumstances as may be specified in the immigration rules". If that is the case, I wonder whether that could be put on to the face of the Bill. That would help to clarify what is meant by,
"In such circumstances as may be specified".
Clearly, there are advantages in writing the circumstances involved on to the face of the Bill to make them crystal clear. However, the Minister may say

123
that the circumstances may need to change from time to time and it would be an encumbrance if they were written into the Bill. However, I strongly feel that some amendment is needed to this phrase, which I consider to be unsatisfactory.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: We, too, support Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. It seems to us that they improve the Bill and make it clearer. They indicate precisely the circumstances in which a bond might be required. Given the fact that we would hope to wish the scheme well, it seems that Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 assist in making plain to people who are involved in the possible bond scheme, the terms under which they are entering into such a scheme. We support the amendments.
Lord Dholakia: I support the comments made by my noble friend Lady Williams. One concern I have is how this clause is to be interpreted. Is it possible for the Home Office to issue criteria or guidelines in terms of the bond that would be required? The reason I ask is that those of us who have experience of immigration cases know that those who are rich, can afford to pay. Many people do not have those resources but would like to visit relations and other people in this country, but they could be deterred from coming here completely. There should be some written criteria which can easily be understood by the immigration officers. Applicants coming to this country would then know precisely what the requirements were and there would be less chance of discrimination against young people and poorer people.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a little about this provision. The Secretary of State would specify by immigration rules the circumstances in which security may be required, how that security should be given, and the circumstances in which it would be forfeit. That the Secretary of State must specify by immigration rules is made explicit in Clause 12(7), which states that "specified" means "specified by immigration rules". Subsections (4) and (6) of Clause 12 set out what the rules must specify. There is no lack of clarity about the way in which the clause is designed to operate.
The amendment seeks to specify two types of case where financial security may be required and specifies them as exhaustive circumstances; namely, where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that an applicant would not leave the United Kingdom within his permitted period of leave, and where the applicant has a previous conviction for dishonesty. It would be inappropriate to include those provisions in the Bill because the point is already dealt with by immigration rules and is too limited.
In regard to the circumstances proposed in the amendment, I suggest, with great diffidence, that they are misconceived for two reasons. In relation to the first one—namely, that the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that an applicant would not leave the United Kingdom—if the Secretary of State did believe that, he could not grant leave to enter in the first
124
place, and the issue of security would not arise. The purpose of the bond scheme is to deal with a borderline case, not with a case where he reasonably believes that that person will not enter.
The second criterion—where an applicant has a conviction for an offence involving dishonesty—is also unhelpful. There will be many cases where some minor act of dishonesty in years past is, frankly, neither here nor there when it comes to assessing a prospective visitor's intention to leave the United Kingdom. It would be impracticable in many cases to check someone's criminal record, at least not without substantially delaying the application. Such information is hardly likely to be volunteered by applicants.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is not saying that this is exhaustive. I also appreciate that this is a probing amendment. I hope that I have explained the situation sufficiently and dealt with the noble Lord's questions. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: Would it not be slightly more elegant to say in subsection (2) "in such circumstances as may be specified by immigration rules" instead of the definition specified in subsection (7)? Then one can do without subsection (7) altogether.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The reason why it is dealt with in that way is because, as the noble Lord will have spotted, the word "specified" appears in subsections (1), (2) and (6) of Clause 12.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is irritating when one thinks of a good way to shorten a Bill and discovers that it does not work. But it happens frequently to me so I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in this case. I am grateful for the Minister's response and in the circumstances beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 16 [Supply of information to Secretary of State]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 34, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: Section 16 provides for all sorts of information held by public sector departments to be passed to the Secretary of State to be used for "immigration purposes". Such public sectors are the police, Customs and Excise and "any specified person". That appears to take the clause wider than simply government departments. It does not say "any specified person within government" but one assumes that that is what is meant.
Amendment No. 16 draws attention to the purposes for which the information may be supplied. Subsection (2) states:
"The information may be supplied to the Secretary of State for use for immigration purposes".
But on closer examination "immigration purposes" turns out to mean, according to subsection (3)(e),
"such other purposes as may be specified".
It is not therefore confined to immigration purposes; it is any purpose which is specified.
I realise that freedom of information is highly fashionable these days, but so is personal privacy. And this clause relates to personal information. One of the strengths of this country is that, though different departments of the government machinery possess information on individuals, those individuals can rely on that information remaining within that department.
Government centrally has become rather leaky—I do not intend that to be a reference to the present Government; the previous government were not much better (though I would argue that they were a little better)—but departments like the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the police are extremely reliable in looking after the information on the citizens with whom they come in contact. One cannot say that about other countries.
From time to time Parliament has given permission for different departments within government to pass information from one department to another, but it does so very reluctantly. This is therefore an extremely wide power. If it was solely for the purposes of improving immigration control, it may be understandable, but a phrase like,
"such other purposes as may be specified",
is extremely wide and takes it potentially way outside the purposes of immigration. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I rise in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Like him I am a little puzzled by subsection (3)(e) in that it seems to be cast in extremely wide terms and one cannot understand why. Paragraphs (a) to (d) appear to cover the waterfront pretty well in relation to immigration and customs, and then one finds this catch-all in subsection (3)(e) which makes one extremely suspicious. It does not appear to be in the spirit of the Data Protection Acts, which attempt to limit the amount of private data that can be made available, and it is likely to run into grave difficulties on the ground of the devolution of power with regard to police operations to Scotland—to take one example. If the power is so widely expressed, one would need at the very least to be sure that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and whatever devolutionary structure is eventually agreed for Northern Ireland are all satisfied about the use of such information.
The Minister may be able to tell us that the scope of that provision is much narrower than it seems, in which case we will all he reassured. Some of us want to press
126
for better wording than that found in Clause 16 which arouses deep suspicions that are probably unjustified. That is the fault of the draftsman, not the Committee.
Viscount Brentford: I also endorse the amendment. The word "specified" is rather getting up my nose. It occurs again in the next clause, and the interpretation is thrown back onto this clause—with a different interpretation than in a previous amendment.
I take subsection (3)(e) to mean such other purposes in connection with immigration as may be specified. If the subsection said that, I would be much happier. The existing wording is a wide and blanket phrase. I appreciate that is something any government like to give themselves, but others would not necessarily agree with it. I look forward to the Minister's explanation, but I would like that provision limited to the subject in mind.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: One of the key aims of the Bill is to create modern and flexible immigration control. It is essential that the Secretary of State should be able in future to receive information for any new immigration purposes that may arise. Removing subsection (3)(e) would preclude that happening. Limiting the desired flexibility would prevent information being received that might be needed to deal with emerging threats to immigration control.
The words,
"such other purposes as may be specified".
would obviously be construed as being ejusdem generis with subsection (3)(a) to (d). When determining what "such other purposes" could embrace, they must be something to do with immigration control. The words must be construed within the four corners of the enabling statute.
It is impossible to predict at this time all the threats to immigration control that may face us in future. They may arise at short notice and require swift action, hence the need for the flexibility provided by Clause 16.
We accept of course that the power must be properly controlled. The order-making power that subsection (3)(e) provides will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—something that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation indicated is appropriate. That procedure, together with adherence to the requirements under data protection legislation and the Human Rights Act—both of which would apply—will provide adequate safeguards.
It is sensible that there should be such a power because one cannot accurately predict how people might seek to evade or undermine the sensible immigration controls contained in the statute. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: The Minister said that the provision will be interpreted as ejusdem generis with subsection (3)(a) to (d) and as being coterminous with the purposes of the Bill. Those purposes are far wider than paragraphs (a) to (d), as one can see from the Long Title, which extends to procedures in connection with marriage on a superintendent

127
registrar's certificate and for connected purposes. Therefore, the "connected purposes" go infinitely wider than paragraphs (a) to (d) in subsection (3).
It would be most helpful if the noble and learned Lord would agree that we should insert wording at a future stage of the Bill which makes it absolutely clear that these other purposes are to be, ejusdem generis, as regards paragraphs (a) to (d) and not coterminous with the purposes of the legislation as a whole.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that that would be appropriate for two reasons. First, if we were to satisfy both the wide purpose and the ejusdem generis rule in relation to (a) to (d) that would provide two cumulative hurdles, which the particular purpose chosen would have to overcome. Secondly, as a matter of construction, it would be construed ejusdem generis in any event with paragraph (e) and, therefore, it would be quite unnecessary.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister may tell us that it is quite unnecessary but I am not sure why we cannot simply add the word "immigration" after the word "other", so as to make the paragraph read,
"such other immigration purposes as may be specified".
It is not as if paragraphs (a) to (d) are very narrow; indeed, as far as I can see, they cover the whole of immigration control and all immigration Acts both now and in the future. They cover prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences under all those Acts. As it is, they are enormously wide in immigration control terms.
However, I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord say that the Data Protection Act will cover this point. Can he confirm to me that this means that, if any piece of information is being supplied from one of these institutions to the immigration control people, the fact that such information is being supplied will be made known to the person to whom the information relates and that the content of such information will also be available to him? I believe that that would probably be the effect of the Data Protection Act on these matters, assuming that the person concerned thought it might be possible and actually asked if that was so. Of course, I may be remembering the Data Protection Act incorrectly in that respect.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sure that the noble Lord will sympathise with me if I do not seek to give too detailed an answer in relation to data protection. However, I shall outline the basic position. The practical operation of the statutory gateways created by the whole of this clause will be subject to the relevant requirements of the ECHR and data protection legislation. This means that when you are providing information from one body to another, even one designated under paragraph (e), you must comply with all the data protection legislation in so far as it is relevant. I shall not be so bold as to indicate what the
128
detail of that would be, but I hope that that explanation gives the noble Lord an indication of what the effect would be of this particular revision.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could expand that explanation by letter when he has had the opportunity to look into the matter.
Judging by subsection (6) of this clause, it seems to me that this is not really a very limiting matter in any case. It says:
"This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be supplied apart from this section".
So all sorts of information may be passed about which is not confined by this provision at all. Indeed, in a sense, one begins to wonder what the purpose of the clause is if anything can be passed about in other ways. However, I shall not pursue that point because it falls outside the terms of my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Lord Dholakia movedAmendment No. 33A:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

Immigration and Asylum Bill

  EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS PENALTIES
  ("In the 1971 Act, after section 25(2), insert—
  "(2A) If any person ("the employer") is employing or has within the preceding 3 months employed any person who is an illegal entrant or a person who has committed an offence under section 24(1)(b) or (c), an immigration officer may serve a notice on the employer, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
  (2B) Any employer who, within 12 months of being served with a notice under subsection (2A), employs any person who is an illegal entrant or a person who has committed an offence under section 24(1)(b) or (c), shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not more than level 5 on the standard scale or with imprisonment for not more than six months or with both.
  (2C) It shall be a defence to proceedings under subsection (2B) above to prove that in respect of any person employed after service of the notice under subsection (2A), before the employment began the employer made such enquiries or inspected such documents as were reasonable in the circumstances to satisfy himself that to employ the person would not contravene subsection (2B).
  (2D) Where an offence under subsection (2B) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to the neglect on the part of—

  (a) any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; or

  (b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

  he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
  (2E) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2D) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
  (2F) In this section, "employ" means employ under a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether it is oral or written, and "employment" shall he construed accordingly."").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment, which is grouped with Clause 18 stand part and Amendment No. 221, provides the Government with a way out of the dilemma in which they find themselves. On Second Reading I referred to what the Labour Party had said while in opposition; namely, that this Bill had implications which constituted a dangerous and impractical burden on employers and that it created an incentive not to hire black staff or people with foreign-sounding names. I referred also to the Labour Party's pledge to repeal a particular provision.
  If the Minister is prepared to interrupt me and say that he is prepared to consider this amendment, I can speak briefly; otherwise I promise that I may have to speak for much longer. I beg to move.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I am terrorised by that threat, I say at the outset and without commitment that we should like to take away Amendment No. 33A in order to take a little more time to consider it properly. We received it only on Friday and we need a little longer to weigh up its merits. I shall return to that matter in a moment. I do not think that I need to summarise the issues as that has been excellently done already.
  As part of our review of Section 8 of the previous Act, we have been concerned by reports of the Commission for Racial Equality that some employers may be making more checks than the legislation requires and that the legislation may be being used by some employers as an excuse to discriminate. We have had to face up to that reality and tackle it.
  As regards the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, we have also discussed with the CRE and others whether it is possible to find better ways to achieve the difficult balance between tackling illegal employment effectively and ensuring that employers do not discriminate. The noble Lord has put forward an alternative solution which deserves to be given serious and fuller consideration. I understand that it has the approval of the CRE, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the TUC. It therefore represents a serious attempt to provide an alternative provision.
  I do not think that it is right for me to go through the detail of the measure. We have some questions on it, but our initial view is that this is an interesting proposal although it may have some potential difficulties. We shall need to think about it and discuss matters with those organisations which advised the noble Lord on the amendment. We undertake to consider Amendment No. 33A without commitment in consultation with interested parties. In the light of the outcome of those discussions, there will of course be an opportunity for the Chamber to return to this matter on Report. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment and allow Clause 18 to be accepted.
  Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. He is even kinder than the noble Lord, Lord Williams! I understood the Minister's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Russell: I too am extremely grateful to the Minister for those comments. However, have a further
  130
  question. Will he consult with his noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham about the defects in the national insurance computer? I remember that there was a great deal of discussion in 1996 about the difficulty of obtaining national insurance numbers. I believe that last week's report of the Public Accounts Committee has indicated that that difficulty is now much greater than it was.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That point is noted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Monitoring refusals of entry clearance]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 14, line 16, at end insert ("; and
  (b) the imposition of penalties and the power of seizure in accordance with sections 25 and 29").
  The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to provide Parliament with a progress report on the imposition and levying of fines on carriers who are held accountable for the arrival of clandestine entrants. It also seeks to ensure that the monitor who is to monitor refusals of entry where there is no right of appeal can also monitor the imposition of penalties under Part II of the Bill. I hope that this amendment will appeal to the Committee. It is obviously not a central matter, but it forms part of our keeping track of how this difficult and complicated legislation works. It is a matter in which this Chamber takes a great interest. I beg to move.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The amendment enables us to ask a small number of questions about the position of the proposed monitor. We will get through the Bill extremely speedily if Ministers are as gracious over all the future amendments we propose to move as they have been over my noble friend's amendment, for which we are very grateful indeed.
  Perhaps I may ask something about the powers, if any, that the monitor is expected to have in addition to those proposed in the amendment. In particular, is there any prospect of the scope of the operations of the monitor being extended beyond seizure, which is mentioned in the noble Lord's amendment, to take in some other areas where a report of that kind would be extremely helpful? For example, it would be very useful to have the monitor look at issues that may arise over the return of people to third countries and matters of that kind. Perhaps the Minister will say a little bit more about the monitor and whether the monitor will be independent, and seen to be independent, in his activities.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation of Amendment No. 34. I think I encapsulate his points fairly by saying that he wants the independent monitor to have a much wider role, biting on Clauses 25 to 30, relating to seizures.
  Where the power to detain has been used under those clauses, then under Clause 30 the owner and so forth of a transporter that has been detained can apply to the courts for its release. That is the mechanism provided for remedy if there has been an inappropriate, unlawful

  131
  or wrong detention. The role of the independent monitor is quite different. That role is to check the standards being applied to entry clearance refusal decisions, where there is no right of appeal. So that must include—rightly, I believe—looking at the overall quality of the decision making, with particular reference to consistency, fairness and the procedures leading to the decision to refuse.
  That role was devised solely in the context of the operation of the entry clearance system. It would not be right to extend the functions to cover the very different issues of civil penalty and the detention of vehicles pending payment of that penalty.
  We have no plans to extend the scope of the monitor in the Bill. We expect that he or she may well want to comment on the bond scheme and we expect the monitor to take a wide view of his or her responsibilities, but not relating to Clauses 25 to 30, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, invited me to do. He or she will have his or her hands quite full enough dealing with the matters I have specified.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for setting the matter out at some length. I shall reflect on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 14, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 35 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 138, 139, 173 and 174. These are all straightforward amendments to remove from the Bill unnecessary statutory provision for the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Treasury for the remuneration of persons appointed to various posts provided for in the Bill. It does not mean that the Home Secretary can pay what he likes to people appointed to these posts; his officials will consult the Treasury in the usual way about the remuneration attached to public appointments to ensure that it is consistent with overall government policy. I commend the amendments and beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I used to be Minister at the Treasury, and I was deeply shocked to see these five amendments on the Marshalled List. At an earlier stage in my political career, I was Lord Commissioner at the Treasury. As such, I attended the only meeting that there has ever been of the commissioners in the past 70 years. It was not a bad glass of sherry!
  It seems remarkable that we should be told by the noble and learned Lord the Minister that the Treasury will approve these matters, but that it is not necessary to include that in the legislation. To my recollection, that has never happened before. Subsections stating that the Treasury's approval is required are littered throughout the statute book in practically every statute I have ever seen. The Treasury must presumably have understood that this provision would be removed from
  132
  the Bill. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can confirm to me that the Treasury approves of these five amendments. The Minister is nodding to suggest that it does. In that case, I shall not pursue my objection to them.
  Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has pursued the deletion of such clauses with the endless patience for which he is renowned. In the absence of the noble and learned Lord, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on his persuasive powers with the Treasury and recommend him for the Simon of Glaisdale medal for reducing the prolixity of the statute book.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Duty to report suspicious marriages]:
  Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 15, line 5, at end insert ("if possible before the marriage is solemnized and otherwise within seven days").
  The noble Viscount said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
  Clause 20(3) provides that a registrar must report to the Secretary of State a suspicion that a marriage will be a sham marriage,
  "in such form and manner, and … within such period, as may be prescribed by regulations".
  The power which is conferred on the Registrar General is not subject to parliamentary control. In its report, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee accepted the case for regulations making procedural provisions for the notification of suspected sham marriages, but not that the Registrar General should have the power to make regulations prescribing a time limit.
  These amendments remove the power in so far as it relates to the time limit, and place on the face of the Bill a requirement that a registrar should report any suspicion "within seven days", as in Amendment No. 36, or "within a reasonable time", as in Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think I am able to be helpful—which is a great shock. I appreciate the reasoning behind these amendments and the way in which the noble Viscount has put them forward. We had intended that there would be regulations to require registrars to make reports within two working days.
  There is much to be said for the amendments in principle. They are an alternative, as the noble Viscount pointed out. We believe that there is more drafting work to be done. Seven days is probably too long a period, but registrars ought to prepare and send reports while the facts of each case are fresh in their minds. "Within a reasonable time" may be acceptable. We shall consider that before bringing forward an amendment. "Forthwith", as suggested by the committee, may be an option. I shall bring forward an amendment on Report, if that is agreeable to Members of the Committee. We shall also wish to ensure that the power to make

  133
  regulations retains the provision to set out the form and manner of reports while removing the timing provision. I am obliged to the noble Viscount for raising the matter. I hope that my response has been helpful.
  Viscount Bridgeman: Clearly, I should have intervened much earlier! I am grateful to the Minister for his very helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
  11 p.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 15, line 8, at end insert ("and must at the same time send a copy of this report to the parties to the proposed marriage").
  The noble Baroness said: I hope that at this hour of the night in moving Amendment No. 39 I shall be as lucky as the noble Viscount. Under Amendment No. 39, when a registrar provides information to the Secretary of State as required under Clause 20 he is required to send a copy of that report to the parties to the proposed marriage. The amendment is based on the proposition that it is only right and proper that those who are subject to what may be a substantial constraint should be made aware of the nature of the argument that is made against them and should be given the opportunity to refute it, if they can, and to advance facts that may allow the Secretary of State to think again.
  We are profoundly concerned that without such a provision, the terms of the European convention, in particular those relating to the right to privacy and to marriage, may be breached in circumstances in which there is, or may well be, a perfectly innocent explanation of what the registrar suspects. Registrars are not qualified to make easy judgments of this kind. Up to now, their functions have been very different. If Members of the Committee look at the advice that is being given to registrars—I have had only a brief opportunity to do so—they will see that it suggests that they will have quite a long time to cross-question the couples who come before them. On the face of it, that does not appear likely. Registrars are also expected to ask questions which it will be very difficult for them to put.
  In particular, I am troubled that the other aspects of the Government's policies, in particular the attempt to explain to couples who are about to marry the importance of understanding the significance of what they are undertaking, including responsibility for any future children, are not compatible with the semi-investigative role now being thrust on registrars. I ask the Government to think very seriously about whether registrars of marriage are the appropriate people for this kind of operation.
  To some it may appear quite right that there should be an opportunity to investigate marriages which it is suspected are marriages of convenience. Many of us are aware that such marriages occur. However, careful consideration must also be given to whether it is more appropriate for immigration officers to question that
  134
  relationship at the point at which the married partner who is not a British national asks for a change in status to recognise the fact that he or she is the spouse of a British citizen. That seems to be a good opportunity—which already exists—to go into such matters; and it appears to be much more a task for an immigration officer than a registrar.
  We are also concerned about the possibility of arguments under the convention with regard to discrimination on religious grounds. as Anglican ceremonies have been exempted from the scope of Clause 20. I have every possible respect for the Anglican Church, but I can well understand that Roman Catholics, members of the Free Church, Moslems or Hindus may well object to that provision on the basis that their marriage ceremonies are just as solemn as those of the Church of England. Therefore, it could be argued that this provision has a certain discriminatory aspect to it.
  We argue that the provision of the report to the married couple will give them an opportunity to make their case along the lines that I have suggested. More broadly, I point out—I suspect that my noble friend will have a little more to say on this matter on clause stand part—that it appears to be extremely unwise to place this responsibility on registrars because it conflicts with their other functions. At the end of the day, it is an unwarranted extension into the area of marriage by someone who is connected officially with the ceremony of marriage, given that an immigration officer can make such inquiries.
  I conclude with a brief remark. I am married to a non—British citizen. I refer to the assiduity with which the British and American authorities—the tax authorities and heaven knows who else-pursue us to discover whether we are still married (having been married for 11 years), whether we are still cohabiting, and whether we are still behaving properly towards one another. Immigration authorities are well qualified to go into those details. After a while one begins to suspect that if one goes away for an evening to a conference the immigration authority of one country or another will immediately suggest that one has become separated, and announce that one is no longer entitled, in my case, to a green card, and in my husband's case to permission to stay; and therefore we suspect that at any moment the roof may fall in. I beg to move.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: The Minister was able to respond in positive terms to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I was happy to add my name to Amendments Nos. 36 and 38. Although I had not added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, Amendment No. 39, I am in equal sympathy with the sentiments she expressed.
  I wish to underline some of those points which I believe should be considered by the Government between now and Report stage. I should like to hear more from the Government about what they think is a sham marriage. Many of us remember the endless arguments about the primary purpose rule. We were troubled at the time about how others perceived a

  135
  marriage compared with those who were entering into the marriage. Different people have different views in a country where the divorce rate is about 44 per cent, and fast approaching the American norm where half of all marriages end in divorce. People today have differing views about what a marriage entails. We live in a more secular environment. We need to have clearer guidance from the Government as to what they mean by a sham marriage.
  I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the use of registrars, rather like lorry drivers or airline pilots, to enforce immigration law. It is undesirable to have those secondary figures being given additional responsibilities. I wonder what the registrars said about it if they were consulted prior to the legislation being laid before us.
  The noble Baroness is right. It is offensive to Moslems, Hindus and Christians from other denominations, who enter what they believe to be valid marriages—to some the only marriage for the remainder of their lives—to be told that the person who marries them will not ask those questions because they have not been recognised as an exempt category. An element of discrimination is being introduced into the Bill. What advice have the Government been given about the claims which could be made against them under the anti-discriminatory legislation for having decided to introduce marriage in those terms?
  I refer back to the proceedings before the 1996 legislation. Constituents gave me examples of how their love letters had been aired at tribunals and immigration appeal hearings in order to test the nature of their relationship. It is deeply offensive that people's personal relationships should be looked at in those terms. I fully understand that there will be people who will try to circumvent immigration rules for many reasons. But to go through every person's reasons for getting married, and constantly to have them in fear that because someone casts doubt on the reasons for the marriage in the first place, their reasons for being here may be invalidated is iniquitous.
  Furthermore, if two people's married relationship breaks down, it builds into the equation another reason why someone can pursue subsequently, in perhaps a vindictive way, the other marriage partner in that broken marriage by saying that the primary purpose was not one of a lasting intent but simply to obtain citizenship.
  Those questions should be explored properly before we proceed with the incorporation of this clause into the Bill. Although I realise that there will not be a vote on it in Committee today, I hope that the Government will give the matter more consideration before we agree to incorporate the provision at Report stage.
  Earl Russell: I have only one reservation about my noble friend's amendment: I have not yet given up hope of living to see a freedom of information Act make it unnecessary.
  The statement of damaging reflections about other people is something for which there should be a degree of accountability. Many people, freed from that
  136
  accountability, are capable of indulging in flights of fancy at quite considerable length. In this context, the question arises: will any derogatory reflections about a couple or either member of a couple submitted under this clause enjoy either absolute or qualified privilege in law in the event of possible proceedings for libel?
  It also seems that the clause may create a conflict of influence for registrars. They have a responsibility to the couple who are getting married at what one believes is likely to be, for many, an important and solemn moment. That may conflict with the responsibility that the clause confers on registrars to cast suspicion on the motives for undertaking a ceremony. That, in turn, bears on the difficulties that the Government have got themselves into regarding the Church of England.
  I would have some sympathy with those difficulties if I were not starting from the premise that the Government should not have begun here in the first place. Parish priests in the Church of England were ex officio registrars long before there were civil registrars. For them, as for any Christian clergy, marriage is a sacrament. Therefore, they have particular spiritual responsibilities towards those with whom they are dealing. I believe that it is perfectly possible that, when faced with their sacramental duties or a duty to the state about which they may have—at best—mixed feelings, Church of England clergy might take the line that their sacramental duty comes first.
  I understand why the Government felt that they could not ask Church of England clergy to undertake these duties. However, if they do not ask the clergy to undertake these duties, they are committing discrimination that is plainly contrary to Article 14 of the convention when taken in conjunction with Article 8—that is, the discrimination article in conjunction with the right to family life—and Article 12, the right to marry. So the Government lose either way. They really should not have started from this point in the first place.
  Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked what was a sham marriage. It is defined in subsection (5) as a marriage that is entered into by a person
  "who is neither a British citizen nor a national of an EEA State … for the purpose of avoiding the effect of one or more provisions of United Kingdom immigration law or the immigration rules".
  The registrar must report evidence—or, presumably, suspicion—that a person is in breach of the immigration law or immigration rules or intends to be in breach of them.
  Does that not presuppose that the registrar knows what is in the immigration law and the immigration rules? Must not the registrar be an expert in that law and those rules in order to report any potential breach of them? How is he to know that he must report? The Explanatory Notes on clauses—which have been helpfully circulated by the Government—state that Clause 20 does not
  "confer powers on registrars or others to question couples about their immigration status".

  137
  Nor does the clause confer powers on registrars to question the parties to the marriage about any other aspect of their conduct under the immigration law and immigration rules. I think that this clause places an impossible duty on registrars.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: In the light of what is stated in subsection (5), will the Government please express a view about arranged marriages? We know that in the context of some communities, cultures and religions arranged marriages are rather important. There is a wide variety of opinion on the subject. Some people point to the fact that arranged marriages have often worked out well whereas others question whether consent can properly be given by a person coming from another continent who may never have met his or her intended wife or husband. We may be getting into some difficulties and complexities. It would be helpful if the Government could clarify the matter.
  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: From these Benches I offer a measure of support to the noble Baroness in her amendment. I have some difficulty with its drafting in that it refers to "proposed" marriages, which, as I understand the clause, would apply to only some of the marriages that would be covered by the term "sham marriage", as that is defined in subsection (5).
  Perhaps I may take forward a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. about freedom of information and invite the Minister who is to reply to indicate one way or another whether this information would be covered by the proposed freedom of information Bill; and, if it is, to explain why it would not be sensible to put this on the face of the Bill now so that at the point of delivery of the information to the Secretary of State those affected by it would, as a matter of routine, be provided with the information that may cast some doubt on the validity of their marriage if it is one that has been solemnised. If there is some argument against that, will he explain how those who are to be affected by the information will come to discover it in the short term?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have to say that the questions that have been raised on Clause 20 are wholly unrealistic. Perhaps I may go back to the terms of the clause. Under Clause 20(1), a duty is placed if the appropriate person who is in a statutory position of authority has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the marriage will be a sham. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly pointed out, the term "sham marriage" is defined in Clause 20(5). All of these bogies have no relation to real life. Perhaps I may go through one or two of them.
  There is no proposal here for cross-questioning of couples by registrars. If they have reasonable grounds for suspicion, which is a perfectly well known legal term and concept, they have a duty to report. Thereafter, the investigations can be made. It is nothing to do with discriminating in favour of the Church of England. As I said at Second Reading, those who marry in the Church of England or the Church in Wales generally proceed by ecclesiastical preliminaries—otherwise called
  138
  "banns"—and the procedure for that will not change. As I said on an earlier occasion, there is no evidence to suggest that religious marriages are abused for immigration purposes; and we are talking about abuse here.
  Paragraph 77 of the Explanatory Notes makes the position quite plain. It states:
  "It does not confer power to refuse to marry on grounds of immigration status".
  It goes on to state—this point has been raised by two or three noble Lords:
  "Nor does it confer powers on registrars or others to question couples about their immigration status".
  Nothing could be plainer. Indeed, Clause 20 states that if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, the report is required to be made. Nothing here interferes with any so-called spiritual relationship between the registrar and those over whose marriage he is presiding in a civil ceremony. I am advised that the registrars welcome the existing informal arrangements for reporting being put on a statutory footing. All that the registrars are being asked to do is to report their suspicions.
  There are two or three further questions. If there were automatic copying of reports to the couple, registrars would feel restrained in setting out their reasonable suspicion. They might be reluctant to comply with the duty to report and that would undermine the purpose of the clause. Often, the report will go to the Home Office and in some circumstances the investigation will be made. In some instances, no action will be taken following the receipt of the report. We believe that other reports will undoubtedly show the existence of sham marriages which the Home Office rightly will want to investigate. If couples and racketeers were given advance notice of the investigation the whole underlying purpose of the reports would disappear.
  The question was raised about absolute or qualified privilege in libel proceedings, if there were to be any. The answer is qualified. The answer to the question about freedom of information is that there are in the draft Bill, which is out for consultation for a two-month period, deliberately drafted restrictions about the disclosure of information which is being obtained with a view to the prosecution of crime. These offences are capable of being criminal offences.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: With great respect, I found the Minister's answer unsatisfactory. Perhaps I may briefly explain why. I have in front of me the draft guidance to registrars in England and Wales. It indicates that the registrar may refuse to proceed with a marriage because he believes that there is a lawful impediment to it. It also indicates that he may base his doubt about the genuineness of the marriage on the basis of either evidence produced to substantiate the dissolution or termination of a pervious marriage and doubt as to the true identity or marital status of the couple to the marriage. Incidentally, one of the things registrars are asked to look at is a major age difference, which would catch many marriages in this country. Thirdly, which is the aspect that is troubling,
  "or as a result of representations made to him by a third party".

  139
  We are not suggesting that the information in the report provided to the Home Office should be provided in advance. We are merely indicating our belief that at some point in the proceedings before final refusal is made the couple should know what is being reported about them and given the opportunity to respond.
  Frankly, as representations may be made privately by a third party as to the non—genuineness of the marriage, such representations could easily be made by people for purely personal reasons; someone who is vindictive to one or other of the parties to the marriage and wishes to try to destroy the prospect of that marriage—
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness argues the reconstruction of her amendment because it states:
  "and must at the same time send a copy of this report to the parties to the proposed marriage".
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I accept that that is what the amendment states. I believe that the registrar would have every right to make his doubts known to the Home Office and then to convey them to the young couple—or the older couple, as the case may be—and it would then be possible for the Home Office to take whatever action it deemed right having given an opportunity for the couple to refute the charge made. If it would help by redrafting to state:
  "and subsequently within a reasonable time",
  we should be prepared to do that.
  However, we must insist on the point that the substance of any charge that can be made on the basis of representations from a third party must be open to refutation in order to avoid the possibility of serious efforts by a third party to try to destroy the possibility of a genuine marriage. I repeat that immigration officers are very good indeed at chasing up sham marriages, and so they ought to be. No one is refuting that.
  Secondly, we already know that the advice given by the Registrar General, or more precisely advice given to registrars of marriage, is incorrect. It failed to recognise that under the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force in 1983, children born of families who came from elsewhere were British citizens. Even in the most recent information provided by the Office for National Statistics the advice is inadequate and incorrect. That advice would be found to be incorrect if the information was made available to the persons concerned. It was refuted by many legal representatives, but it was not changed in the guidelines. Even the information given to registrars turned out to be factually incorrect. They might have reached the incorrect conclusion that a marriage had an impediment to it. My understanding is that that has still not been put right. I shall return to that on Report, but for now I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 39A:
  Page 15, line 22, after first ("the") insert ("sole").
  The noble Lord said: This is a very small amendment and the purpose behind it is simple. By including the word "sole" we shall ensure that we are dealing only with sham marriages, not other reasons for marriages. I hope that the Minister finds it appropriate to accept the small change in the wording. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: If the Minister objects to the word "sole" he will be saying that the marriage was for the primary purpose. I welcome the Home Office's recent abolition of the primary purpose rule. Rejecting the amendment would mean bringing the rule back in not by the back door, but by the revolving door.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The provision relates to reasonable suppositions about a sham marriage, which is defined as one that is entered into,
  "for the purpose of avoiding the effect of one or more provisions".
  This is not the primary purpose rule by the back-door or the revolving door—or indeed by the French doors or the patio swing doors.
  The primary purpose rule required applicants to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage was not to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. We thought that that was arbitrary, ineffective and unfair. We abolished the rule on 5th June 1997 and we have no intention of reinstating it. However, there is a legitimate expectation that if an individual seeks to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage, the marriage must be genuine. The aim of the provision is to tackle abuse by those who are prepared to enter into a sham marriage to secure an immigration advantage. There is a good deal of material to show that that is an abuse. The attention given to Clause 20 is misplaced.
  Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Dholakia: I should like to make four points. The arguments about sham marriages have been well rehearsed.
  First, in opposition, the Labour Party made it clear that it was against the primary purpose rules and would abolish them at the first opportunity. The aim of the primary purpose rule was not to dispute whether the marriage was genuine, but to determine whether the purpose of the marriage was that someone was seeking admission to the United Kingdom. We are coming back to the same argument in a different way, saying that a marriage is not genuine and the purpose behind it is to stay in the United Kingdom.
  My second argument, which the Minister has dismissed, is about indirect discrimination. I accept that a lot of preliminaries are undertaken before someone marries in a church. But it is clear that a large number of people of different faiths and religions are unable to

  141
  marry in church because they have a different faith, a different belief. Therefore, a condition is being imposed which the Commission for Racial Equality described as indirect discrimination. They are conditions and requirements which cannot be justified because the people concerned are unable to meet the conditions which a Christian could meet; that is, getting married in a church. Therefore, there is indirect discrimination because people are allowed to marry in a church with no questions being asked but the registrar has a different role to play.
  The third point is the intention of registrars. I listened carefully to the Minister. I wish to stress to him that by trying to catch sham marriages, the Government are putting blame on a large number of ordinary, law-abiding black and brown faces in this country.
  I want to give an example which will justify what I am trying to say. Only last week I was returning from Brussels with the members of the European Communities Sub-Committee F. The chairman of that committee, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was with me. There was no problem when we arrived in Brussels. The immigration officer was satisfied when we waved our passport documents at him. We were allowed through. However, when we arrived at Waterloo, there was a long queue of people. There was a black guy a few feet ahead of him. I said to my noble friend, "You watch. They will take his passport and flick through. I bet you when my turn comes, the same thing will happen". That is precisely what happened.
  The point I am trying to make is that there are situations in which people probe much deeper because they do not believe that you are what you say you are. Those beliefs are often held. It is not surprising. I remember when I used to work for the Commission for Racial Equality that registrars used to insist on the production of a passport for proof of identity when there are many other ways in which people can prove their identity; for example, a birth certificate and so on. I believe that by imposing this onus on the registrar, life is being made very difficult for a number of black and brown faces in this country.
  The Minister knows that there are ample powers by which to determine whether or not a marriage is a sham. Quite simply, under existing law it is quite feasible to see whether or not the marriage has subsisted for a period of one year. If it has not, there are ample powers by which the individual can be removed from this country. Therefore, why do we need a clause which imposes such an obligation on registrars? They are decent, honest people but, unintentionally, they may take action which could do a lot of harm to good race relations in this country.
  11.30 p.m.
  Earl Russell: There is a serious point here. In 1628, an unmarried couple in Cannington in Somerset were presented for trial to the church courts accused of fornication because they had been keeping company with suspicious frequency.
  It seems to me that that is exactly the type of suspicious mentality which the clause is bound to invite. I hear what the Minister says that the registrar will not
  142
  be allowed to question the couple. But if that is so, how will his suspicions arise? The fears of my noble friend Lord Dholakia are well-founded that that will necessarily result in a form of indirect discrimination. That will create a good deal of suspicion arid desire to avoid marriage.
  Various people inside the Government occasionally express concern at the move from marriage towards cohabitation. I cannot help feeling that if this clause reaches the statute book, among every racial minority and every couple in which one member is of foreign origin the clause would accentuate that tendency. I do not see any decent loving couple wanting to subject themselves to this set of suspicions, the consequences of which, in the light of what we have heard about the employment clause and a great many other clauses, may turn out to be very serious.
  I also simply cannot see how this clause can be made to be convention compatible. There has to be discrimination on grounds of national origin, because if both members of the couple are British born they are not subjected to it. So discrimination on grounds of national origin is built into the very warp and woof of the clause.
  Discrimination on grounds of religion is again built into the clause. I hear what the Minister says about banns. On the other hand, is he suggesting that every case in which banns have been posted is necessarily, therefore, genuine? There is a vast mass of material in the Record Office of this place which demonstrates otherwise. That really was a slightly unwise suggestion.
  Registrars do not normally know much about the people whom they marry. In a large town, in particular, it is a mass operation. If it is not done either by suspicion on grounds of racial origin or by suspicions planted by informers, I do not know how it will he done. However, the reference by my noble friend to information from third parties worried me. It is likely to be a case of hell knows no fury. I think that the Government have opened a very much larger can of worms than they realise. I hope they shut it quickly before all the worms get out.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to set out how this position of the Church of England arises and how it compares with the position of other Christian denominations such as the Church in Wales or the Church of Ireland, which are Anglican, and the Roman Catholic Church, among others. It seems to me that discrimination between the different denominations of Christians is awkward in a Bill of this character. In any case, I am riot sure how it arises on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is no discrimination here. Those who marry in the Church of England or the Church in Wales generally proceed by ecclesiastical preliminaries; in other words, banns. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we have no evidence of significant abuse of those ecclesiastical preliminaries. The procedures for marriage in the established Church are already more lengthy, as I said earlier, and more involved in civil preliminaries.

  143
  Religious marriages other than those in the established Church require civil preliminaries. That is, therefore, the reason they are not exempted from the charge.
  I turn to the figures. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, if one has significant evidence of sham marriages, that is an attack on the institution of marriage, an institution which he rightly commends. I shall give a few examples in a moment. However, perhaps we may return to what Clause 20 says. It does not require an inquisition or cross-examination. It simply puts into statutory form the informal arrangements which have existed for a long time. If a registrar has reasonable grounds for suspicion, he or she must report it to the Home Office, as they do now on an informal basis to the Registrars General of Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. I repeat: that is done at the moment.
  Currently, if the Registrar General has a report and is satisfied that the registrar's suspicions are well-founded, the report is passed to the Home Office. We are altering that informal system to have a statutory duty to make the reports. I repeat—I hope for the last time—that that is based on reasonable grounds for suspecting that the marriage will be a sham marriage.
  The immigration service team, which has not been operating all that long, has made over 236 arrests for offences connected with sham marriages. Of the foreign nationals arrested, 118 have been charged or cautioned and 42 removed or deported. It is sometimes quite plain to registrars that a marriage is likely to be a sham; for instance, if the couple do not really know each other, if they have to refer to notes to remember their names or if they do not speak the same language. Sometimes registrars see money changing hands. That is not limited to the parties to the marriage; there is significant evidence of rackets going on which involve substantial sums of money.
  I will give some examples: a male asylum-seeker who attempted to marry a woman using a false Irish identity, sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for perjury; a British male who married six times but failed to obtain a divorce on one occasion and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for bigamy, perjury and facilitating immigration leave by deception; an Irish away-day bride who attempted to marry an illegal immigrant, arrived for her wedding accompanied by all of her eight children. Those are examples where there was reasonable suspicion and had nothing to do with the colour of people's skin.
  I take the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia's, point because he knows that I have reason to know about it and that I sympathise with it. If the examination checks at Waterloo were wrongly carried out, they were immigration checks and nothing to do with marriage.
  The registrars have an informal arrangement at the moment and we want to put it on a statutory basis. There is no right in any convention that I know of which incorporates the right to enter into a sham marriage. We are saying that if the registrar, as the appointed agent on a statutory basis, has reasonable suspicions that this is all a sham, he is required to notify the Home Office.
  144
  Thereafter, the reasonable suspicions may prove to be wholly unfounded and nothing more needs to be done, but, if they are founded, then people will be prosecuted. It is a mischief. It is an attack on what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, holds up as the model for men and women to live together. It has nothing to do with a decent regard for marriage; it has to do with an abuse of the process on quite a significant scale for cash.
  Earl Russell: The Minister has chosen a slightly unfortunate example for his own purpose. He chose the example of a couple who hardly knew each other. Richard Nixon proposed to his subsequent wife two hours after having met her. They were married until death did them part.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is the best example of all time, bearing in mind that he was notoriously untruthful for most of his political existence.
  Earl Russell: I make no defence of the President's politics.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Provision of facilities for immigration control at ports]:
  Lord Cadman Lord Cadman moved Amendment No. 40.
  Page 15, line 29, at end insert—
  ("() In formulating such facilities the Secretary of State shall have due regard to their economic cost and practical relevance to the control of immigration.")
  The noble Lord said: While I have no quarrel with the proposal that the control port should provide necessary facilities for the proper control of immigration, the clause and the amendment that follows, which was proposed by Her Majesty's Government, appear to give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to demand almost any facility. It has to be said that recent approaches to Her Majesty's immigration officers to provide a service connected with their work at control ports that are to be modified or improved by the provision of new services has resulted in quite outrageous demands for accommodation and facilities, and tend not to be in keeping with the task at hand. Proposals connected with the processing of international railway passengers since the opening of the Channel Tunnel have been somewhat difficult and there is presently a serious problem developing at Manchester Airport. The problem is that Her Majesty's immigration service tends to demand facilities such as staff car parking and subsidised canteen arrangements, to say nothing of superior office accommodation and the provision of CCTV cameras designed to reduce the workload of immigration officers.
  All these facilities have to be provided out of scarce resources, free of charge, by the port owners, who are often constrained by shortage of available space. The amendment is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State pays attention to the likely cost and relevance of any demanded facilities and should help to forestall the demand and provision of services that could be

  145
  construed as staff benefits not properly connected with the provision of an immigration service. I respectfully suggest that all ports should be treated on the same basis if charges for services are considered, which is not the present position.
  In relation to airports, Her Majesty's Government's immigration proposals should reflect government policy towards regional airports and redress, not reinforce, differences between those airports and the London airports. Beneficiaries should not be asked to bear the costs of outdated and inefficient working practices in the immigration service, and there should be greater transparency of Her Majesty's immigration costs. I beg to move.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cadman. Over the years I have seen generous provisions demanded not just by the immigration service, but also by Customs and Excise. We saw that at Dover around 10 years ago when a new passenger immigration terminal was built. After the first couple of weeks, it was merely a wide-open space in which nothing happened. When Dover Harbour Board suggested building a supermarket there, it was told that that immigration facility was necessary, although it has not been used for anything since. Willesden rail freight terminal is not relevant to questions of immigration, but it still involves officials. An enormous great office was built of which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food required a complete floor, but it has not been there during the five years in which the building has been open.
  The worst case occurred when I was working on the Channel tunnel. A police station was required to be built, at no cost to the police force, to ensure law and order at the terminal. It was nothing to do with MI5; it was merely to ensure law and order at the terminal. An enormous building to house 80 police officers in stupendous luxury was provided. One day an officer was asked how many officers would be required if the police were paying for the service themselves, and in an off-the-cuff answer we were told, "Two part-time from Ashford". There is a great gulf between two and 80. When the private sector is, if anything, reducing its standards of accommodation, and outsourcing and downgrading, the generous demands to which the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, referred possibly need a bit of tempering with words such as "economic cost" and "practical relevance".
  I was particularly interested when the noble Lord said that the officers required free car parking space. I thought the Government's policy was to reduce the use of cars and to increase the use of public transport. Or will we see, if and when road pricing and workplace parking charges come in, many government departments seeking exemptions? I hope that the Minister will consider carefully our remarks in relation to this amendment, which I support.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I too am sympathetic to this amendment. Something along the lines of reasonableness, whether in these precise words or some other, could well be included in this clause.
  146
  Something the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said rang a small bell in my mind. I was involved with Customs and Excise when the Channel tunnel was first discussed and I seem to remember a considerable argument as to what facilities should be provided on the trains, including whether it should be possible to detain people on the trains. The first suggestion was that a high percentage of the train should be taken up with facilities that might be needed if a large number of smugglers were arrested. I am glad to say that we came to a more reasonable conclusion in the end, but that and one or two other instances give me some sympathy with the purposes behind the amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: The noble Lord is right. There is still a mobile gaol on every train, complete with racks to which to handcuff people. I do not believe they have ever been used, but they are useful for storing the luggage of Japanese tourists.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand why my noble friend Lord Cadman has tabled this amendment. Some operators, particularly at smaller ports, are genuinely concerned that the facilities they may be required to provide will not be proportionate to the size and nature of their operation and would significantly add to their operating costs.
  Rental and other costs arising from the provision by port operators of other accommodation and facilities, such as back offices and waiting areas—which are no less essential to the operation of immigration control—fall to the taxpayer. Such charges, which are often at premium rates, include those attributable to services that port services, using their monopoly, insist on delivering themselves at above market prices.
  Increases in passenger numbers are forecast, bringing great commercial benefits to port operators but also significant resource difficulties for the Immigration Service. As ports expand and new ones are established to accommodate the growth in international travel, additional burdens are placed on the Immigration Service in terms of increases in rental and associated costs. It is vital that the United Kingdom maintains its position as an international hub and a centre for trade, culture and education.
  We welcome and are committed to facilitating growth. However, it seems reasonable for there to be a balance between the benefit to those with a commercial interest and the cost to the taxpayer. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, accepts that it is not the intention to require facilities that are not necessary for the control of immigration. The significant growth in passenger traffic that we now experience brings with it commercial benefit to port operators. It is not, in the Government's view, unreasonable to look to them to make more of a contribution to the increasing costs of the Immigration Service in facilitating that growth.
  Clause 21(1) states that the person responsible for the management of a controlled port must provide the Secretary of State, free of charge, with such facilities as the Secretary of State may direct as being reasonably necessary for or in connection with the operation of immigration control. We are in close consultation with

  147
  the industry in looking at the range of facilities that it is reasonable to expect it to provide. The kind of facilities will be prescribed by order, with a statutory requirement to consult individual operators before directions are given under the provisions.
  The Immigration Service will continue to work in close partnership with port operators. Their requirements will have regard to the size and nature of the port's operation, for what is reasonably necessary will reflect those matters. The aim, wherever possible, will be to proceed by agreement with the operators within a clear framework provided in secondary legislation following the consultation already under way.
  In all these circumstances I hope that the noble Lord is reassured and no longer considers it necessary to make his amendment.
  Lord Cadman: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, although I found it a little disappointing. I am trying to reinforce the word "reasonable" and to make sure that in future, a more direct reasonableness is introduced in the provision of such facilities. However, at this hour of the night I do not intend to pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment 41:
  After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—

  CHARGES: IMMIGRATION CONTROL
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State may, at the request of any person and in consideration of such charges as he may determine, make arrangements—

  (a) for the provision at any control port of immigration officers or facilities in addition to those (if any) needed to provide a basic service at the port;

  (b) for the provision of immigration officers or facilities for dealing with passengers of a particular description or in particular circumstances.

  (2) "Control port" has the same meaning as in section 21.
  (3) "Facilities" includes equipment.
  (4) "Basic service" has such meaning as may be prescribed.").
  The noble Lord said: This group of amendments comprises in addition Amendments Nos. 217 and 220. This clause replaces Section 9(4) of the Immigration Act 1988 and clarifies the Secretary of State's powers to provide on request, and in return for a charge, additional immigration services or to provide immigration officers or facilities to deal with passengers of a particular description. We have in mind, for example, fast-track clearance at airports or cruise liner immigration clearance.
  We want to work in close partnership with the port authorities but need to clarify existing provisions, to ensure that charges can be made when a port requires additional immigration control resources to be provided. We need to define the level of service to be provided without charge-the "basic service". We are working closely with DETR officials and have had numerous detailed discussions with various organisations likely to
  148
  be affected, both before and since the publication of the White Paper. We are consulting with industry representatives and hope to reach a reasonable agreement on the definition of "basic service".
  Our intention is to provide a publicly funded basic service at all control ports, whether or not designated as ports of entry under Section 33(3) of the Immigration Act 1971. If a different level of service is required, that should be made available on request for payment. Amendments Nos. 217 and 220 are consequential changes to Schedules 13 and 15. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Deception]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 16, line 8. after ("include") insert ("material").
  The noble Lord said: This clause criminalises asylum seekers who use any deception. I do not disagree with that as a general overall principle, but it seems to me that, in some cases, there will be a small level of deception which should not lead to the same consequences as would a major attempt to get into the country by absolute deception. We must remember that many of these people are under great strain at the time of their arrival when seeking asylum. In those circumstances, we all know that the whole truth may not come out. Withholding some piece of evidence, or the fact that some evidence was not disclosed, might be regarded as deception. Indeed, "deception" is not only telling a falsehood; it is also omitting to disclose some information which later turns out to be material.
  Therefore, it seems to me that we should modify the clause slightly by adding the word "material", so that only "material deception" can lead to such fierce penalties. I beg to move.
  Lord Hylton: It seems to me that the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is necessary. It may save the time of the Committee if I try now to explain the reasons that moved me to give notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 22 should stand part of the Bill.
  I was concerned with current applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and not with people who may be resisting enforcement action. I was particularly concerned that mere inaccuracy, perhaps in describing events that occurred some time ago, should not be construed as deception. Asylum seekers may well have escaped from a persecuting or life-threatening country only by concealing or embellishing the bare truth of their situation. They might feel an obligation to maintain the consistency of their stories on arriving in this country.
  There have been cases in the past where immigration officials have seized on minor inconsistencies or errors in an application to cast doubt on the applicant's whole case. It would be wrong for the culture of disbelief to be enshrined by more than one reference to "deception" in the Bill. In my view, it is also important that inability or refusal to answer intimate questions should not be understood as deception in cases of torture or rape victims.
  I was further alarmed by the fact that neither the 1971 nor the 1996 Act define the meaning of "deception". On April 20th, the Minister in another

  149
  place apparently referred to the definition in the theft Acts, but only in the context of penalties, so that what he then said may not be relevant to the main purposes of this Bill. I have seen and read a learned article in Criminal Law by Sir John Smith QC and the late Mr Brian Hogan of Grays Inn but as this refers only to the theft Acts it also may not be of much help. What I seek both in immigration and asylum cases is that each one should be treated fairly on its individual merits and in particular that deception should not be read into cases where it was not intentional, deliberate, fraudulent or dishonest. Amendment No. 42 may meet this case. I shall in any case look forward to hearing the reply of the Minister.
  Midnight
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hylton on Amendment No. 42. However, I wish to ask the Government about the conflict that may arise under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention and Clause 22 as it currently stands. In so far as the measure may be applied to asylum seekers and refugees, particularly to those entering on false documents, do not the Government agree that it should be amended to limit its scope and definition and that that should be reflected in guidelines to prosecuting authorities? If the Government fail to do that, a conflict may arise with regard to Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. That could leave the Government open to action and possibly to further cases of judicial review.
  Earl Russell: At Second Reading of this Bill I referred, perhaps in a slightly lighthearted way, to the possibility that one might argue that asylum seekers were more likely to be fraudulent if they came on genuine documentation than if they came on false documentation. Since then I have had the dubious pleasure of reading the Asylum Aid publication, Still No Reason At All. I found that I should not have been so lighthearted. What I was treating as a joke is fact. In the words of the publication,
  "A staple of refusal letters runs thus: The Secretary of State notes that you were able to obtain a properly issued passport which you then used to leave [country as appropriate] through normal immigration channels without difficulty. He has concluded that this indicates the authorities have no interest in you".
  But if not using deception leads one to be regarded as an asylum seeker who is abusing the system, and using deception excludes one from the process, is not the right of asylum being rendered nugatory?
  I support the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, made about Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. With the leave of the Committee I wish to read Article 31(1),
  "The contracting states shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article I, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".
  I ask the Minister to reconcile Article 31(1) of the UN Convention of 1951 with Clause 22 Of this Bill.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 22 extends and strengthens the existing deception offence under
  150
  Clause 24A(1)(a) of the 1971 Act. The effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, would be to insert the word "material" before "deception" in the new offence. The word "material" does not appear in the current offence and I do not believe that it is necessary. It seems to me beyond doubt that for any prosecution under the new offence to succeed it will have to demonstrate that any deception is material to a person's obtaining, or seeking to obtain, leave to enter or remain, or their securing, or seeking to secure, the avoidance, postponement, or revocation of enforcement action. This is because new Section 24A(1) makes clear that the means used have to include deception.
  Just to make that clear, Section 24A(1) states:
  "A person who is not a British citizen is guilty of an offence if, by means which include deception by him … he obtains or seeks to obtain leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom".
  So the deception must be one of the things that led to him getting the right to enter. If it did not contribute to that, then it is not material. The word "material" is not in the existing offence; this part of the section is a repetition of the existing offence. It is not necessary, therefore, to put it in because the position is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, would wish it to be.
  As far as concerns the more general points, we understand, of course, that an asylum seeker may arrive here with false documents or no documents at all. Genuine refugees who arrive here directly from a territory where they fear for their life or freedom, and who present themselves without delay and claim asylum, are covered by Article 31 of the 1951 Convention. This will be taken into account by the prosecuting authorities in determining whether to prosecute. It will be for the Crown Prosecution Service ultimately to decide whether any prosecution should proceed. It may very well not be in the public interest to do so unless there has been serious deception. Even having regard to Article 31, we believe that the criminal law has a proper role to play in some cases.
  I hope in the light of those assurances that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
  Earl Russell: I was very interested in—and, in part, very grateful for—the Minister's reply about Article 31. The Minister was following the line already taken in the Notes on Clauses. I should be more reassured if he would go a little further and guarantee to tighten the wording of the Bill to make it say no more than is said in the Notes on Clauses. That would be a very helpful offering.
  Lord Hylton: It may well be that "material" is not the right word. If that is the case, how about "intentional'', "deliberate", "fraudulent" or "dishonest"?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Unless the Minister wishes to respond to those comments, I have heard what he said and I will study it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Facilitation of entry]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 16, line 42, at end insert ("or").
  The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Penalty for carrying clandestine entrants]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 18, line 6, at end insert—
  ("provided always that any sum paid by way of penalty under this section shall he refunded to the person or persons responsible, in any case where the Secretary of State finds that the passenger is irremovable from the UK because his removal would be contrary to the Convention or the Human Rights Act 1998.").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44. The amendment brings us on to Part II of the Bill. We have left the general provisions on immigration and come to carriers' liability and, in particular, the penalty for carrying clandestine entrants.
  It is provided by the Bill that lorry drivers or lorry operators, ships' captains and other people should be subject to a penalty if it is discovered—by them or by anybody else—that clandestine immigrants have been carried on the vehicle or the ship in question. There have, of course, been similar provisions in regard to aircraft for some time. However, in the aircraft provisions, I understand that if it is subsequently found that the person in question is legally admitted into the country under one of the international conventions we have been discussing, or for some other reason, then the penalty that the airline has paid in respect of that person is refunded. That seems to me to be fair enough. There is no equivalent provision in the Bill so far as vehicles or ships are concerned. It seems to me that there should be. Amendment No. 44 seeks to insert such a provision.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: It may be helpful if I briefly define our thinking behind this penalty and our resistance to the amendment.
  A civil penalty is constructed to catch the transport of all clandestine entrants who either seek to evade immigration control or seek to claim asylum. So the aim of the penalty is to make drivers ensure that the security checks are operated on every occasion to prevent entry of clandestines and to ensure that would-be clandestines know that that is happening. Whether or not an individual clandestine entrant has a genuine case is not relevant to the issue of whether proper checks have been taken with regard to a transporter to prevent the carriage of clandestine entrants generally.
  The difference identified by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is a difference because the circumstances are different. A great deal of control is available over fare-paying passengers entering aircraft and ferries. The civil penalty that we are looking at is aimed deliberately at dealing with a much less secure situation. Whether or not the clandestine is ultimately successful does not bear
  152
  on the true point here; namely, has the driver actually carried out his duties to check? If he has failed, the penalty has to remain.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The position as regards a ship is similar to that of an aircraft in the sense that aircraft staff examine the documents in an attempt to ascertain whether someone is genuine. Sometimes they make mistakes and someone who turns out to be clandestine and is therefore not admissible is nevertheless allowed on the aircraft. The same must occasionally happen so far as ships are concerned. The comparison is extremely direct. The Minister explained some differences in regard to drivers. I accept that there is an element of difference, although it is still rather unfair if people are ultimately admitted. But ships seem to be in exactly the same position as aircraft.
  Lord Berkeley: To follow the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, most ferries carry both cars and lorries. So there will be two different types of clandestine immigrants. If they have come in a car and are allowed to stay, the ship's captain is not liable; but if they have travelled in a lorry on the same ship, he is liable. I agree that it is rather unfair.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: We shall come to the question of cars when debating Amendment No. 62. The Minister does not seem inclined to respond further to my comments. I shall therefore have to ponder the matter further. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 45:
  Page 18, line 17, at end insert—
  ("(d) if it is a transporter ("the carried transporter") being carried in or on another transporter, the owner, hirer, driver or operator of the transporter in or on which it is carried").
  The noble Lord said: I was interested to see the definition of a transporter: the carried transporter being carried in or on another transporter—which I believe means a shuttle train going through the Tunnel. However, the definition at line 12 on page 26 of the Bill is "not a shuttle train".
  My amendments are designed to probe the "inequity" between ferries and shuttle trains. On ferries, the lorry driver, the owner of the trailer or the captain of the ship is potentially guilty. But if the lorry or trailer goes on a shuttle, the lorry driver or trailer owner or operator is guilty but the operator of the shuttle is not guilty. If I were a shuttle owner, I would be very pleased; if I were a ship owner, I would regard it as very unfair. Perhaps my noble friend can explain the difference between the two forms of transport which both take the same kind of lorry.
  12.15 a.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: We believe that it is sensible that the civil penalty should attach to the owner, hirer or driver of the lorry. If that lorry arrives on a ferry, it is the owner, hirer or driver of that lorry, not those responsible for the ferry, who should be liable. We are trying to bite on weak security that allows clandestines to conceal themselves in a lorry. The effect of Amendment No. 45 is to try to reverse that. We do not believe that the owner, hirer, driver or operator of a ferry which carries a lorry containing a clandestine should be "a responsible person" within the meaning of Clause 25(5). If a person arrives concealed in a lorry, it is right that the owner, hirer or driver of that lorry should be responsible.
  Shuttle trains are different, in that they carry vehicles which have already passed through UK immigration controls. It is for that reason that we draw a distinction here. We believe that it is legitimate to require those who are responsible for lorries to satisfy themselves, as they can, that their systems are appropriate and that they do not bring clandestines into this country.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister gives a very interesting answer which has much wider ramifications. Many lorry drivers drive the tractors of articulated vehicles to France and collect trailers that have already been sealed by Customs. The driver has no means of checking the contents of that trailer in any practical way. It seems to me that he is in exactly the same position as the shuttle train. A lorry may have a container on the back which is loaded and sealed elsewhere and is not under the control of the driver, let alone the hirer, even less the owner, who may be a very long way away from the point at which the driver picks up that container. If the Minister relies on the arguments that he has just advanced for shuttle trains, they should apply also to articulated container lorries and, in some cases, to ships.
  Lord Berkeley: I too find the answer given by my noble friend interesting. Perhaps my noble friend can say at what stage the lorry driver, or whoever else may be liable, commits an offence. Is it when he or she enters UK territorial waters, or crosses the frontier, or passes through immigration? If it arises when the driver passes through immigration, presumably the immigration people can look for the illegal immigrants. The driver will not have committed an offence until he lands on British soil, in which case he is all right if he travels by shuttle. Perhaps my noble friend can assist me out of my confusion.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not alone in being confused. I find myself profoundly confused. It appears that an offence is committed if any clandestine is carried. Even if that clandestine turns out subsequently to be a legitimate asylum seeker, the ring will be closed. I do not see how anyone who is a legitimate asylum seeker can ever get into the country.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: The answer to my noble friend's question can be found in Clause 25(1):
  "A person is a clandestine entrant if—
  (a) he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a vehicle, ship or aircraft".
  That is the point at which he commits an offence.
  Clause 25(5) states:
  "In the case of a clandestine entrant to whom subsection(1)(a) applies, each of the following is a responsible person".
  If one reads through the scheme at Clause 25, it becomes straightforward.
  I was asked about the driver who picks up a trailer. Such a driver will have to pass through UK immigration control. It is the responsibility of the driver and the owner to ensure that the system is in place for checking. Some checks have already been successfully undertaken by some companies.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Clause 25 states that,
  "A person is a clandestine entrant if he arrives in the United Kingdom".
  If he travels on a lorry on the Shuttle he has gone through immigration in France, so he has not entered the United Kingdom. Presumably if the British immigration authorities in France picked him up, and no one else did so, he has not entered the United Kingdom and has not committed an offence. If the immigration authority has not picked him up it is probably not doing its job properly. I fear that the situation is still confusing.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, because the situation that the noble Lord now describes is provided for in Clause 25(1)(b).
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister. It has been an interesting discussion. It will need careful study. I hope that I shall not have to return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 18, line 36, at end insert—
  ("(11) This section shall not come into effect until—

  (a) the Secretary of State has procured the implementation of suitable systems for preventing and detecting clandestine immigrants: and

  (b) the Secretary of State has demonstrated that the systems will not cause any additional cost or significant delay to the persons responsible.").

  The noble Lord said: While Amendment No. 47 relates to a different issue, we have touched on it in previous amendments. It relates to the setting up of the systems for the operators and anyone else who may be liable if clandestine entrants are involved.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to this point. How does the driver who picks up the load know whether there is anyone inside? I have conducted some investigation. Among the methods used for getting into

  155
  containers is cutting the roofs and sides of the lorries with a Stanley knife, then taping the sides to look as though they have not been broken. The Custom seals are broken but they can be replaced with forged seals. It is extremely difficult to tell whether someone is inside the lorry.
  If the poor driver is to be certain that there is no one inside, someone will have to issue him with a ladder to climb on to the roof. One answer might be for the Government to issue all drivers with collapsible ladders! At Second Reading, I mentioned the biomass detector which is working between Mexico and the United States. Dogs can also be used. However, the most efficient way is to have the screening at the ports or the Eurotunnel terminal in France. It is up to the Government to ask the neighbouring member states to supply those facilities so that the lorries going through can be screened.
  There is already a major security programme for the Channel Tunnel. All trains and lorries coming into the tunnel are screened. I do not understand why the security people undertaking that on behalf of the French Government, whose responsibility it is, should not extend that screening to illegal immigrants.
  It is unfair that drivers have no means of telling who is in the lorries, but they will still be liable. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 47 is important. It covers some of the points which I proposed to raise on Amendment No. 51, and so on. A draft code of practice is brought into effect a little later in the Bill. It attempts to lay down what drivers and others have to do in order to avoid being charged under these clauses.
  The code of practice has not yet been agreed by the relevant trade associations. It is important that it should be agreed, but it is a difficult practical matter both for the Government and those representing the Government in the negotiations and for the trade associations. The practical difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, drew attention are among those that must be considered in the code of practice.
  I think that this code of practice must be agreed rather than imposed if that is at all possible. That is why I put Amendment No. 48 on the Marshalled List. It seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State is not obliged to have agreed by the time the Bill is enacted in case the negotiations drag on. The noble Lord also suggested that, before issuing the code of practice, the Secretary must consult and reach agreement. I think that my amendment would be necessary if his were passed.
  The code of practice is difficult because of subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 27 to which my Amendment No. 51 draws attention. That is the bit in the Bill that turns the code of practice into a legal requirement, rather than something that is desirable—such as the Highway Code and other similar codes of practice. Clause 27(4) does that by saying:
  "In determining, for the purposes of this section, whether a particular system is effective, regard is to be had to the code of practice".
  156
  Under Clause 27(3)(b), the carrier must show that he has an effective system. However, if an immigrant succeeded in getting through immigration control, the system was patently not effective. Therefore, it is no defence for the driver, operator, hirer or anyone else involved to say, "Well, we have a system", because it was patently not effective. We all know that no system is perfect and that no system of control by immigration officers will work 100 per cent. Yet, as I see it, the lorry driver has an obligation to comply with every detail of the code of practice—and, what is more, to succeed—if he is not to fall foul of this clause and end up paying the penalty.
  In view of the lateness of the hour, I am seeking to group together Amendment No. 47 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 51 to the following two clauses and, by implication—I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me—Amendment No. 50 on consultation.
  Earl Russell: The key point that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made was that the driver often simply does not know—and has no opportunity to know—whether someone is in his cab and he does not always have access to the rear part of the transporter. In that context, I have looked with some apprehension at Clause 25(7), which states:
  "it is immaterial whether a responsible person knew or suspected … that the clandestine entrant was concealed in the transporter".
  That is the doctrine of the absolute offence: it does not require any mens rea at all on the part of the accused. That is quite rare in English law, and United States courts in some cases—one for which my New York lawyer boasted at great length about being responsible—have refused to recognise British convictions reached under the absolute offence. I do not think that that will do our legal reputation very much good.
  Another question arises. It may possibly be the case that the person concealed inside the transporter is a genuine refugee with full convention entitlement. There is no way in which that can be known until his case is examined. What will happen to the genuine refugee who is detected in those circumstances? Will his claim be heard; or will he be sent back, in which case the Government will be in breach of Article 33 of the UN Convention on Refugees? That point needs to be answered before we go any further.
  12.30 a.m.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, responds, perhaps I may say a few words about Amendment No. 50. Amendment No. 50 states that before issuing the code of practice the Secretary of State should consult and reach agreement with those affected. A very troubling offence would be committed by lorry drivers and other transport operators with regard to carrying a clandestine person about whom they knew nothing. It is therefore crucial that before any such code of practice is issued, they should be fully consulted and their views and concerns taken into account.

  157
  In view of what my noble friend said, it is clear that the bodies that represent the interests of genuine asylum seekers should also be consulted about the code of practice. As matters stand, we are looking at a ring of steel which in some remarkable way is clapped on both genuine asylum seekers and those involved in the transport industry. It seems remarkable that the Bill achieves both of those results. This group of clauses is extremely disturbing and we would hope to return to them at Report stage if no answer is given at the present time.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not think the noble Baroness spoke to the group with which we are dealing. The group has one amendment, Amendment No. 47, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The next group is Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50, which stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Amendment No. 47 is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
  The civil penalty—I am now repeating what I said earlier—is a vital measure to combat a major problem of large-scale clandestine illegal immigration. Amendment No. 47 puts a dual duty on the Secretary of State: first, to procure the implementation of systems for the prevention and detection of clandestines, and, secondly, to demonstrate that such systems would not cause any additional cost or significant delay. A large number of systems, or aspects of systems, are already capable of preventing the entry of clandestines into vehicles: sturdy locks, metal-sided containers and a number of other measures, together with the regular checking of vehicles. There is scope for improvement in the security of many vehicles coming to this country. The point of the civil penalty is to bring that about.
  One needs to look at a number of these clauses together. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to Clause 25(7) and the absolute nature of the offence. However, Clause 25(7) is specifically subject to any defence provided by Clause 27. Clause 27 provides the defences. Clause 27(2) deals with duress. Under Clause 27(3), the carrier has a defence if he shows that he did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that a clandestine entrant was, or might be, concealed in the transporter; that he had an effective system for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants; and that on the occasion in question the person or persons responsible for operating that system did so properly. To test whether or not the system is effective, one has to pay attention to the code of practice. That seems to me to be a series of measures of sensible practical utility.
  I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that we need to consult as widely as possible on the code of practice. We want to minimise any additional burden on transport operators. Many have appropriate and effective systems. The code of practice is dealt with in Clause 26 and I reiterate that we do not want
  158
  unnecessary unreasonable burdens in terms of either efficiency or cost. One needs to look at all these subsections together and not any one separately.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. On Second Reading, I asked whether he would place in the Library a copy of the draft code of practice. I understand that a draft is circulating the industry. It would be helpful if Members of the Committee could have a copy so that we can see whether our fears are unfounded and whether there is no problem where there are sturdy locks and metal-sided containers, and if people do not have Stanley knives. I remain concerned until I have seen the code, so perhaps the Minister can respond now.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister kindly sent me a copy of the code of practice and I shall be happy to give a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I believe that it has been placed in the Library.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful, as always. There was an awful moment when I wondered whether I had signed the letter; Alzheimer's is a terrible disease; perhaps I had forgotten! I am grateful to the noble Lord for being so courteous as to remind me.
  Lord Berkeley: On that basis, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Code of Practice]:
  [Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 not moved.]
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Defences to claim that penalty is due under section 25]:
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Procedure]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 19, line 40, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
  The noble Lord said: It seems to me that subsections (4) and (5) are particularly obnoxious. They provide that:
  "If a penalty notice is served on one of the responsible persons, the Secretary of State is to be taken to have served the required penalty notice on each of them",
  and that he must nevertheless take reasonable steps to do so. That is all very well, but the responsible persons listed in the earlier clause include, in the case of a lorry, the driver, the operator, the owner and the hirer of each part of it, as it were. There may be a difference between the tractor unit of an articulated lorry and the trailer unit which may be carrying a container. Each may have different owners, be subject to different hire agreements and have different operators.
  A large number of people in different countries may be involved, yet if an immigration officer serves a piece of paper on the driver, who will normally be the man in

  159
  the hot seat when the immigrants are discovered, that is assumed to be served not merely on his employer, but also on all kinds of people who have never heard of the driver and are nothing to do with the immediate circumstances in which the apparent offence has been committed. However, they are expected to know about it. What is more, their property is liable to be detained and subsequently confiscated. They are assumed to have had the notice simply because it has been served on the driver—the least of all these persons and the one least able in some respects to communicate with all the others. It would be better if it was served on the owner and it was then assumed that he would pass it down the line to the people below him in the various chains, but the Bill proposes that it be given to the bottom person in the chain. He is expected to get it through to all sorts of people with whom he has no contractual relationship and who, almost by definition, are in more than one country. The two subsections should not be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The structure of the Bill provides that more than one person may be responsible for a clandestine entrant. For example, the owner, hirer and driver of a vehicle may all be responsible persons. That is because responsibility for security may be spread between a number of parties in the chain of transport. The aim of the civil penalty is to encourage all of them to take proper responsibility.
  The practical circumstances in which a penalty notice will be issued mean that it may be possible to serve the notice on only one of the responsible persons. For example, a notice may be served on a lorry driver when a vehicle is apprehended with clandestine illegal immigrants aboard. We shall try to ensure that all the responsible persons receive a penalty notice. Clause 28(5) requires the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure that. However, the operating circumstances of the transport industries are such that that may not be possible in every case.
  The civil penalty covers a range of industries in which there is often a diffuse chain of responsibility. We have tried to strike a reasonable balance in Clause 28 to ensure that the Secretary of State is under a duty to make every effort to notify all the responsible persons, while recognising that in some cases that will be very difficult, if not impossible.
  We must provide for the real possibility that unscrupulous operators will try to conceal their identity or involvement to avoid responsibility for a civil penalty. If we were to impose an absolute requirement on the Secretary of State to notify all the responsible persons in every case, that requirement could become a means by which unscrupulous operators defeated the operation of the civil penalty. We believe that subsections (4) and (5) strike a sensible and reasonable balance between the conflicting requirements and concerns. I urge the noble Lord to consider what I have said and to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: The explanation of my noble and learned friend the Minister makes me think that there will be a witch hunt throughout Europe of people who hire out containers and trailers. Anyone who wants to take a container or a trailer to this country will need to pay a premium as insurance against being hunted down by the thought police in case they were seen to be liable. There are thousands of people who hire trailers and containers, some of them of repute and some of them not of repute. Some of them come from eastern Europe and Russia. The provision is very wide, but it would be easier to make it narrower. It would be easier if proper facilities were provided at the continental ports to inspect the lorries as they went through. That would make the provisions unnecessary.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The reply given by the noble and learned Lord to the amendment has increased my dissatisfaction with the provisions. The Minister said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Secretary of State to find all the relevant people. And yet, in effect, he is imposing an obligation on the driver to find them all or, in some cases, the other way round. I entirely agree with his submission that there are diffuse responsibilities. I tried to hint at what some of those diffuse responsibilities may be. If it is difficult, if not impossible—I use the Minister's phrase—for the Secretary of State, it is equally difficult, if not impossible, for the driver also to find all those people. But if he does not, he will carry the can for them all. He may find himself in trouble with several of those groups for not informing them that the notice on him was served on them too.
  That is extremely unsatisfactory. However, it seems that the Minister is not going to change his response. We shall reflect further on this matter but I hope the Minister will do so too between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  12.45 a.m.
  Lord Henley: I thought we had agreed to stop at this stage. I thought that we were going to deal with Amendment No. 53 on another occasion.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand the position to be that we are going to deal with Amendment No. 53.
  Lord Henley: That means that we are moving on to Clause 29 and I understood that we were not going to deal with that clause this evening and that that would be dealt with on another occasion. Perhaps I misunderstood what was said.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understood that we were to deal with Amendment No. 53. There is no reason why we should not break in the middle of a clause.
  Clause 29 [Power to detain vehicles etc. in connection with penalties under section 25]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 20, line 42, at end insert ("but the Secretary of State shall reimburse the carrier for any expense incurred by him as a result of the detention").
  The noble Lord said: Clause 29 provides for the seizure of a vehicle. It may turn out that the seizure of a vehicle was unnecessary because the penalty notice was wrong, a mistake was made and so on. I understand why the provision is made lawfully to detain a vehicle, although it may turn out to be unlawful or unnecessary and not supported by the law. A penalty notice may be ill-founded. I understand why no provision is made to sue for unlawful seizure of the vehicle in such circumstances. But the owner or operator of the vehicle will have been put to great expense. The lorry provides the means by which the operator makes his money. If the vehicle is detained, particularly for any length of time, the operator is prevented from making money and his business is taken away from him.
  There are some individual owner-drivers who own only one lorry. If that is detained, he is completely out of business for the relevant period. This amendment is modest and it does not provide that all the compensation which seems to be due should be paid. I have merely provided that at least the expenses which have been incurred should be reimbursed. Such expenses may of course be quite serious. He may have been put to the expense of penalty clauses, particularly if the effect of detaining the lorry is that the load has somehow deteriorated. Many loads deteriorate in many different ways if delayed in the course of transport. He can be put to considerable expense in that way, as well as to the expense of hotel bills and so on, during the period of detention while the situation is being sorted out.
  We should bear in mind that while that is taking place, considerable penalties may have to be paid by various people in different countries, and complications concerning the different currencies involved, and so on, will have to be sorted out. The carrier could, therefore, be put to considerable expense which, given that the detention was based on an ill-founded penalty notice, should be refunded to the carrier concerned.
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has made out a very strong case, given that this is in the context of what is, at any rate, an ill-founded basis of detention of a transporter. "Ill-founded" is written on the face of the Bill. En those circumstances it would seem completely unjust for the owner of the vehicle to bear the expenses involved in such detention which is, after all, part of the Government's attempt to try to establish control.
  I have one question for the Minister; that is, if it is discovered that the transporter has transported only one or two persons who later turn out to be accepted as legal asylum seekers and are accepted into this country on that basis, would that still be regarded as the kind of ill-founded detention on which the carrier would bear the costs of the detention and the Government would
  162
  not? In other words, is carrying legitimate refugees, as they turn out to be, regarded, nevertheless, as grounds for detaining the vehicle that carries them?
  Earl Russell: This clause, and the surrounding clauses, will be a considerable burden on international trade. Such burdens have a nasty habit of becoming reciprocal. When that happens, all countries lose, but an island state is liable to lose a great deal more than most.
  Lord Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that the load may deteriorate if a trailer or lorry is impounded. It usually deteriorates more when illegal immigrants have been in it for three or four days. The customers often reject that, so the carrier often has his load rejected and does not get paid.
  Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, why it is only the carrier who he believes should be reimbursed. Many other people are involved in the chain, as we have been discussing for the past hour. Do they not deserve reimbursement as well?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was relying on a definition of "carrier" which I cannot put my finger on at the moment. However, I think that the noble Lord will find that it covers many of the people concerned in all this. If it does not, perhaps I should have deleted "carrier" and put "responsible person".
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As one would expect, the noble Lord is entirely right in his instincts about the definition. The section makes it clear that the carrier is liable to a penalty under Section 25. A person liable to a penalty under Section 25 is a "responsible" person, so he is absolutely right in relation to that.
  I turn to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. The Chief Whip was speaking so loudly that it was difficult to hear large parts of it, so perhaps the noble Baroness could correct me if I am wrong. As I understood it, the question was: if somebody turns out to be a legitimate asylum seeker, can that person be a clandestine entrant?
  Baroness Williams of Crosby: The Chief Whip obviously spoke more loudly than I did, which is understandable at this time of night. I asked whether, if the transporter was detained and it later emerged that it had carried a clandestine immigrant who was later accepted to be a legitimate asylum-seeker, the penalties would fall to be met by the owner of the transporter. Would it still be the case that that penalty could not be reimbursed?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My understanding of the statute is that a person is a clandestine entrant if he arrives concealed in a vehicle and then later indicates that he intends to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. The fact that his claim for asylum is later upheld does not prevent him from being a clandestine entrant. In other words, the essence of the circumstances in which a civil penalty is imposed is in relation to a clandestine entrant; that is, the transporter of a person who is concealed on the transport.

  163
  The answer to the question is that even if it was an ill-founded, though not unreasonable, levying of a penalty, and even though the person who was concealed was granted asylum, at the end of the day there would be no compensation for the detention.
  Clause 29(4) is intended to provide the immigration service with some protection against possible claims for compensation where they have acted reasonably in detaining a vehicle, even though a penalty notice issued under Clause 25 was later found to be ill-founded. Amendment No.53 would remove that protection. Subsection (4), which is sought to be removed, should be considered with the qualification given in subsection (5) to the effect that it does not apply if the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably in issuing the penalty notice.
  We recognise the significance of the power to detain transporters and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, effectively and persuasively described the very grave consequences for the owner or operator or for those whose goods have been carried when the vehicle is detained. We have therefore sought to include in the Bill a number of safeguards, of which subsections (4) and (5) are part. We are seeking to strike a balance. Were there to be liability for any expenses incurred by a transporter, even though the immigration officer acted on the basis of an apparently valid notice, it would place an unfair burden on those administering the civil penalty and go a long way towards making it unworkable.
  Immigration officers would be aware that there would be a liability for costs incurred if for some reason the penalty notice is set aside. They would, as a result, be most reluctant to detain. The immigration officer must be able to act on the facts as they appear to be. If the penalty notice is issued reasonably, it is right that the power to detain should follow and that there should be no liability to costs.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, will be aware that that is the situation in many analogous fields. The balance is struck by saying that as long as it is reasonable there will be no liability to compensation, but if it is unreasonable there is potential liability. That strikes the balance between protecting the transporter on the one hand and on the other making the section work. I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment.
  Lord Cope: I am not entirely happy about the matter. I did see the phrase about the Secretary of State acting unreasonably. It is very difficult to show that he acted unreasonably in many cases where people have been put to great expense. The Minister said that the expense will be borne by the driver, by the operator and all the other people of whom we have been speaking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Dholakia: I can be brief; many of the arguments have already been advanced by a number of previous speakers. Instead of talking about clandestine entry penalties, I want to talk about due process rights.
  164
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, clearly explained that it is for the Secretary of State alone to decide whether any objections to the issue of a penalty notice are justified. We went into that explanation at some length. I have been provided with a brief by Justice which clearly demonstrates that, on the advice it received, it is a breach of Protocol 1(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Two arguments are advanced. First, there is the question of whether such penalties (which may lead to a carrier's bankruptcy) can be considered to be proportional to the harm caused in circumstances where the person carried subsequently sustains a claim to protection. This is further argument in support of an exemption as suggested in paragraph 7.6 of Justice's argument, of which the noble and learned Lord has a copy.
  Secondly, it considers that these penalties may constitute a criminal charge for the purposes of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights. My point is that there are strong arguments to the effect that the Bill is creating a criminal penalty which should therefore be determined by a court. For those reasons, I oppose Clause 29 standing part of the Bill.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I will not advance the arguments I advanced in relation to subsections (4) and (5) because the noble Lord kindly said that I dealt with them in my previous speech. That leaves only the issue raised by Justice as to whether or not Clause 29 offends against the ECHR.
  Now may not be the moment to go into the precise provisions in detail. This is not a criminal sanction; it is a civil penalty. As it is a civil penalty the normal requirements in relation to fair trials and so forth do not apply. Great care has been taken to ensure that that is the position. Though Justice's brief was well argued, we are satisfied, having taken all appropriate advice, that this does not offend against the ECHR.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed. (HL Bill 81)
House adjourned at two minutes past one o'clock.

  Gibraltar Airport
  Gibraltar Airport
  Serbs: Definition
  Serbs: Definition
  KLA
  KLA
  KFOR
  KFOR
  Kosovo: Interim Administration
  Kosovo: Interim Administration
  Burma: British Council Teaching
  Burma: British Council Teaching
  Iraq: UNSCOM Laboratories
  Iraq: UNSCOM Laboratories
  Agent Orange
  Agent Orange
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Young Offenders: Murder and Manslaughter Convictions
  Young Offenders: Murder and Manslaughter Convictions
  Custodial Sentences
  Custodial Sentences
  Leaks of Official Information
  Leaks of Official Information
  Education: Parental Choice
  Education: Parental Choice
  Sheffield LEA
  Sheffield LEA
  EU Pension Fund: Use of Public Moneys
  EU Pension Fund: Use of Public Moneys
  EMU: Excess Government Deficits and the UK
  EMU: Excess Government Deficits and the UK
  Albania
  Albania
  Armed Services: Future Stockpile Levels
  Armed Services: Future Stockpile Levels
  NATO: Operation Names
  NATO: Operation Names
  Insulin-dependent Diabetes
  Insulin-dependent Diabetes
  M.4 Westbound Elevated Section
  M.4 Westbound Elevated Section